title: Case T-207/00: Action brought on 8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de Campos against European Parliament

text:
C 302/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
The applicant puts forward four pleas in law.                          Action brought on 8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                                Campos against European Parliament
First plea in law: infringement of an essential procedural
requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the EC Trea-                                   (Case T-207/00)
ty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC):
Contrary to Article 16 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure,                                  (2000/C 302/71)
in the version applicable at the material time, the decision was
not signed by the Commission Member responsible and by an
authorised agent of the Commission’s Secretary-General.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Second plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
Articles 905 to 909 of Commission Regulation No 2454/93                An action against the European Parliament was brought before
laying down provisions for the implementation of the Com-              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
munity Customs Code, and infringement of the principle of              8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de Campos, residing in Lisbon,
legal certainty:                                                       represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar.
The decision was adopted on 4 February 1998, but it was not
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
until 6 June 2000, that is to say, 28 months later, that the
customs authorities brought it to the applicant’s attention.
                                                                       —     declare unlawful the ‘Rules on the implementation of the
                                                                             mobility policy’, adopted by the Bureau of the European
Third plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
                                                                             Parliament on 16 December 1998;
Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the
Community Customs Code:
                                                                       —     annul the decision communicated to him by letter
                                                                             No 107854 of 30 March 2000 by the Directorate General
Under that provision, subsequent entry in the accounts is not                of Personnel, according to which he is subject to the
to take place where the amount of duty legally owed failed to                scheme for 2000;
be entered in the accounts as a result of an error on the part of
the customs authorities which could not reasonably have been
detected by the person liable for payment, the latter for his          —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
part having acted in good faith.
This matter was the subject of lengthy discussions between the         Pleas in law and main arguments
Turkish authorities and the European Commission.
The matter has been fully resolved since 1994, inasmuch as             The applicant has brought an action under Article 91(4) of the
the Turkish authorities have brought their export provisions           Staff Regulations of the European Communities against the
into line with the wishes expressed by the Commission.                 decision communicated to him by means of letter No 107854
                                                                       of 30 March 2000 from the Directorate General for Personnel,
                                                                       of the European Parliament, according to which he is subject
Article 220 of the Community Customs Code is not confined              to the mobility scheme for the year 2000.
to errors on the part of the customs authorities of the Member
States of the European Union. Errors made by the customs
authorities of non-member countries coming within the scope            The applicant claims that the contested measure:
of agreements entered into with the European Union must
also fall under that provision.
                                                                       —     Breaches the principle of legal certainty
Fourth plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
Article 239 of the Community Customs Code:                                   The assurance that Lisbon would be the place where he
                                                                             would undertake the duties for which he was recruited
                                                                             was, for the applicant, an essential element in his decision
According to the applicant, the Commission has wrongly                       to accept the offer of employment made to him by the
overlooked the fact that the present constitutes an exceptional              European Parliament.
case within the meaning of Article 239 of the Community
Customs Code, as elaborated in Article 905 of Regulation
No 2454/93, resulting from circumstances in which no decep-                  The Parliament must honour the promises it made as to
tion or obvious negligence may be attributed to the persons                  the place where the applicant was to undertake the duties
concerned.                                                                   for which he was recruited if it is not to be in breach of
                                                                             the principle of legitimate expectations.
                                                                       —     Breaches the principle that laws are not retroactive
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/31
      For the Bureau of the European Parliament now to apply             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
      in respect of the applicant the ‘Rules’ of 16 December             put forward by Biret International in Case T-174/00.
      1998 is tantamount to an attempt to alter twelve years
      after their implementation the rules and conditions
      applicable to the competition on the basis of which the
      applicant was recruited to carry out (specifically) the
      duties of Head of the Information Service in Lisbon. By
      doing so, the principle of the non-retroactivity of laws
      has been breached.
                                                                         Action brought on 11 August 2000 by Nuove Industrie
                                                                         Molisane s.r.l. against the Commission of the European
—     Breaches the principle of legality
                                                                                Communities
      Adoption of rules with the scope of the ‘Rules on the
      implementation of the mobility policy’ amounts to a                                          (Case T-212/00)
      veritable amendment of the Staff Regulations which
      exceeds the powers of the Parliament to define and                                          (2000/C 302/73)
      implement its staff policy under the provisions of the
      Staff Regulations.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 11 August 2000 by Nuove Indus-
                                                                         trie Molisane s.r.l., represented by Ivo Van Bael, of the Brussels
                                                                         Bar, and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Rome Bar.
Action brought on 10 August 2000 by Etablissements
  Biret et Cie against the Council of the European Union                 The applicant company claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-210/00)                                 —     Annul the contested decision in so far as the Commission
                                                                               applied the adjustment factor of 0,75 to the competition
                                                                               assessment criterion, instead of the proposed factor of 1;
                         (2000/C 302/72)
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     Adopt any other such measure as may appear appropriate
                                                                               on legal and equitable grounds.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Communities on 10 August 2000 by Etablissements Biret et
Cie, established in Paris, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues,
of the Paris Bar.                                                        The applicant in the present case, which is a limited-liability
                                                                         company consisting of a single person, established in Sesto
                                                                         Campano, which is an assisted area for the purposes of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Article 87(3)(c) EC, challenges Commission Decision
                                                                         SG(2000)D/103923 of 30 May 2000 (State Aid No N 787/99)
—     establish the liability of the European Community in the           concerning a project for regional investment aid in favour of
      court-supervised liquidation of the applicant’s subsidiary,        the applicant, as defined in the Commission notice on the
      the company known as Biret International;                          multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment
                                                                         projects.
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay to the
      applicant damages in the sum of FRF 70 630 850;
                                                                         The object of the subsidised project is to establish a plant for
                                                                         the production of clinker (the basic material used in the
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the             manufacture of water-activated binders), which the applicant
      costs.                                                             is at present lacking.
                                                                         The aid in question has been declared partially compatible
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         with the common market. The applicant submits in this regard
                                                                         that the Commission’s decision to use, in the formula for
The applicant claims compensation for the loss and damage                determining the maximum allowable aid intensity, the figure
arising from the court-supervised liquidation of its subsidiary,         of 0,75 as the adjustment factor for the competition assess-
Biret International, which has been forced to cease trading as           ment criterion, and consequently to declare compatible only
a result of the prohibition of imports into the Community of             the amount of ITL 29 176,69 million, is vitiated on the
beef and veal, especially of American origin.                            following grounds:


title: Case C-66/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/14

         Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
   (Case C-66/12)
   2012/C 118/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               primarily, annul, under Article 263 TFEU, the communication from the Commission, COM(2011) 829 final of 24 November 2011, in so far as the Commission thereby refused definitively to submit appropriate proposals to the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations and also annul, under Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with effect from 1 July 2011, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto, and

               —

               alternatively, find established, under Article 265 TFEU, an infringement of the Treaties by reason of the fact that the defendant has failed to submit appropriate proposals to the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the first head of claim seeking the annulment of the communication from the Commission dated 24 November 2011, the Council relies on a single plea in law claiming an infringement of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, read together with the second sentence of Article 13(2) TEU and Article 241 TFEU. The Council maintains that the Commission’s conclusion that there is no serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation within the European Union is vitiated by several errors: the Commission failed to take into account all the relevant and available objective data and erred in its assessment of some of the data on which it based its analysis. Given that, in accordance with the judgment of 24 November 2010 in Case C-40/10 (paragraph 79), ‘it cannot be considered that the exercise of the powers conferred on the Commission by [Article 10 of Annex XI] constitutes a mere option for that institution’, those errors in the legal characterisation of the facts, which are manifest errors of assessment, have vitiated by illegality the refusal by the Commission to submit appropriate proposals on the basis of that article. By that refusal, the Commission is also in breach of its duty of sincere cooperation (Article 13(2) TEU).
   The second head of claim seeks the annulment of the proposal for a regulation adjusting the remuneration and pensions of officials in accordance with the ‘normal method’ established by Article 3 of Annex XI of the Staff Regulations. The Council claims that that proposal constitutes an act having legal effects, because, according to paragraph 71 of the judgment in Case C-40/10, ‘the Council is not entitled to rely, in the context of Article 3, on a discretion going beyond the criteria laid down in that article’. By choosing to submit a proposal based on the application of the ‘normal method’ instead of a proposal based on the exception clause in Article 10 of Annex XI, the Commission has deprived the European Parliament and the Council of the possibility of exercising their discretion as to the criteria of that exception clause. That choice is tainted by the same errors as the Commission’s conclusion in the communication of 24 November 2011 that there is no serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation within the European Union. Further, the Council claims that by submitting the proposal for the adjustment of remuneration in accordance with the ‘normal method’, the Commission is also in breach of its duty of sincere cooperation (Article 13(2) TEU).
   Finally, the Council claims, alternatively, that, in the event that the communication from the Commission dated 24 November 2011 should not be regarded by the Court of Justice as a definition by the Commission of its position within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 265 TFEU, the Commission is in breach of its obligation under Article 241 TFEU, read together with Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-40/10 (paragraph 79), to submit a proposal on that basis.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Case C-472/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Arthur Andersen & Co. Accountants c.s. (Sixth VAT directive — Article 13B(a) — Exemption of services related to insurance transactions by insurance brokers and insurance agents — Life assurance — ‘Back office’ activities)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Case C-472/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Arthur Andersen & Co. Accountants c.s. (1)

   (Sixth VAT directive - Article 13B(a) - Exemption of services related to insurance transactions by insurance brokers and insurance agents - Life assurance - ‘Back office’ activities)
   (2005/C 115/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-472/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 7 November 2003, received at the Court on 12 November 2003, in the proceedings Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Arthur Andersen & Co. Accountants c.s. — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that 'back office' activities, consisting in rendering services, for payment, to an insurance company do not constitute the performance of services relating to insurance transactions carried out by an insurance broker or an insurance agent within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


C 95/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  24.3.2001
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges absence of or           Case T-72/00, Steffen Skovmand v Commission of the Euro-
insufficient reasons given by the selection board for changing          pean Communities.
the criteria for marking the tests in question by reducing the
averages for the points to be obtained for those tests, contrary        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
to Article 5 of Annex 3 to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                              Removal from the Register of Case T-143/00 (1)
       Removal from the Register of Case T-19/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/45)
                         (2001/C 95/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        By order of 14 November 2000, the President of the Fourth
By order of 20 November 2000, the President of the Third                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                Case T-143/00, Sylvia Haupt v Commission of the European
Case T-19/00, Jean Demaeght and Others v Court of Justice of            Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.00.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
                                                                              Removal from the Register of Case T-237/00 R
       Removal from the Register of Case T-72/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/46)
                         (2001/C 95/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        By order of 9 October 2000, the President of the Court of First
By order of 10 November 2000, the President of the Third                Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  removal from the Register of Case T-237/00 R, Patrick
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                Reynolds v European Parliament.


title: Case C-417/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  2 May 2006  — Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Closure of Community financial assistance — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Local or regional entity — Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity — Direct concern)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2006 — Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-417/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Closure of Community financial assistance - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Local or regional entity - Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity - Direct concern)
   (2006/C 143/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Regione Siciliana (represented by: A. Cingolo and G. Aiello, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and L. Flynn, agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order made on 8 July 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-341/02 Regione Siciliana v Commission declaring inadmissible an application seeking annulment of Commission Decision D(2002)810439 of 5 September 2002 closing the file relating to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) financial assistance for the major project ‘Messina-Palermo motorway’
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Regione Siciliana to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-558/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — ENI v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/61

         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — ENI v Commission
   (Case T-558/08)
   (2009/C 44/104)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: ENI SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, lawyer, D. Durante, lawyer, G.C. Rizza, lawyer, S. Valentino, lawyer, L. Bellia, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the Decision in whole or in part, with all the consequential implications for the level of the fine;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs and associated expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision contested in the present case is the same as that contested in Case T-540/08 Esso and Others v Commission.
   The applicant pleads the following in support of its action:

               —

               Infringement and misapplication of Article 81 EC in so far as Article 1 of the Decision found that ENI had participated in a continuing agreement and/or concerted practice by virtue of the presence of Mr Di Serio at the ‘technical meeting’ held on 30/31 October in Hamburg. In particular, ENI complains of errors of fact, and contests the legal consequences flowing therefrom, in that (i) the Commission stated that ENI had not, as part of its defence during the administrative procedure, maintained that Mr Di Serio ‘openly distanced himself’ from the content of the meeting in question and (ii) the Commission reported incorrectly ENI's statements concerning the discrepancies between the price increases reported in the documents originating from Sasol and from MOL. Apart from such errors, ENI submits that the Commission erred in law in finding that ENI had participated in a continuing agreement and/or concerted practice, when ENI had not participated in any ‘global plan’ and the requisite evidence of the two infringements alleged was lacking;

               —

               Infringement and misapplication of Article 81 EC in so far as Article 1 of the Decision found that ENI had participated in an agreement and/or a concerted practice in the period from 21 February 2002 to 28 April 2005. ENI disputes, in particular, the assessment of its participation as anti-competitive in view of the absence of the requisite evidence of an agreement or concerted practice for the fixing of prices and the exchange of sensitive information.

               —

               Infringement and misapplication of Article 81 EC and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, and of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines. It is submitted in that regard that the Commission:

                           —

                           determined the basic amount and the additional amount of the fine in a way that was unreasonable and contrary to the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality. In fact, the percentage applied by the Commission in order to determine the basic amount (and the additional amount) of the fine was 17 % of the value of the sales, on the ground that ENI was responsible for the fixing of prices and the exchange of information, whilst the coefficient applied by the Commission to other undertakings which participated in the cartel and which also shared products and/or customers was practically identical (18 %).

                           —

                           disregarded the principle of legal certainty as regards its application of a repeat offender surcharge, even though the offences committed in the 1980s by companies controlled by ENI could not be attributed to ENI and were not blamed on ENI at the time of the respective decisions. Furthermore, application of a repeat offender surcharge is unjustifiable in view of the length of time which has passed between the old offences and those covered by the Decision.

                           —

                           failed to categorise as mitigating circumstances the applicant's limited participation in the agreement and the lack of implementation of the decisions made in the course of the ‘technical meetings’. ENI adds that it provided evidence of Mr Monti's belief that the meetings that he was attending were entirely legitimate in that they were organised by the European Wax Federation and, in any case, of the lack of any intention by ENI to commit an infringement; the information received from its employee did not enable it to appreciate the anti-competitive implications of those meetings.


title: Action brought on 22 August 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-286/96)

text:
  5 . 10 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 294/9
  Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, of the Brussels Bar, with an           — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
  Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Article 7 of the Directive requires Member States to establish
                                                                           programmes in order to reduce pollution of the waters by
  — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws , regulations or            the substances within List II . The Directive did not expressly
        administrative provisions necessary to comply with                 provide for a date of entry into force . In a letter of
        Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October 1993 ( ] )             3 November 1976 , the Commission proposed the following
        adapting to technical progress Council Directive                   timetable to the Member States : an authorization system by
        91 / 157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing               15 September 1978 ; programmes to reduce pollution by the
        certain dangerous substances ( 2 ), or by failing to notify        substances within List II by 15 September 1981 ;
        such measures, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its        programmes to take effect by 15 September 1986 . Those
        obligations under that Directive,                                  periods expired without the Italian Republic having
                                                                           adopted the programmes necessary to comply with the
  — order the French Republic to pay the costs .                           Directive .
- Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (M OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
  Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
  directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on
  each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States
  are required to observe the time limits laid down in
  directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on
  31 December 1993 without the French Republic having
  brought into force the necessary provisions in order to                  Action brought on 22 August 1996 by the Commission of
  comply with the Directive referred to the Commission 's                    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
  application .                                                                                Case C-286/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/ 19 )
  (') OJ No L 264 , 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 51 .
  ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           22 August 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, of its Legal
                                                                           Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
  Action brought on 22 August 1996 by the Commission of                    Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                              Case C-285/96 )                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               ( 96/C 294/ 18 )
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                     within the prescribed period the laws , regulations or
  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                           administrative provisions necessary to comply with :
  22 August 1996 by the Commission of the European
  Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, of its Legal                    — Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of 22 July 1991
  Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                         adapting to technical progress for the 14th time
  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its                      Council      Directive        67/548/EEC      on     the
  Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                         approximation of laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions relating to the
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                                     classification , packaging and labelling of dangerous
                                                                                substances ('),
  — declare that, by failing to adopt programmes to reduce
                                                                               — Commission Directive 93 / 86/EEC of 4 October
        pollution containing quality objectives for the 99
        dangerous substances listed in the Annex, or by failing to                  1993 adapting to technical progress Council
                                                                                Directive 91 / 1 57/EEC on batteries and accumulators
        communicate to the Commission the programmes and
        the result of their application, contrary to Article 7 of                  containing certain dangerous substances ( 2 ),
        Commission Directive 76/464/EEC ( '), and by not
        providing the Commission with the information                           — Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of 29 October
        requested in that connection , contrary to Article 5 of the                 1993 concerning the list of substances referred to in
        EC Treaty, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                   Article 13 ( 1 )         (5)      of Council   Directive
        obligations under that Treaty, and                                         67/548/EEC ( 3 ),
 ---pagebreak--- No C 294/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5 . 10 . 96
    — Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC of 25 November                  Italian Republic having brought into force the necessary
        1993 laying down Annex VII D , containing                     provisions in order to comply with those Directives .
        information required for the technical dossier
        referred to in Article 12 of the seventh amendment to         0)   OJ No   L 228 , 17.  8 . 1991 , p . 67.
        Council Directive 67/548/EEC (4 ),                            (2 ) OJ No   L 264,  23 . 10 . 1993 , p. 51 .
                                                                      (3)  OJ No   L 277,  10 . 11 . 1993 , p . 33 .
    — Council Directive 92/72/EEC of 21 September 1992                (4 ) OJ No   L 294 , 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
        on air pollution by ozone ( 5 ),                              (5 ) OJ No   L 297,  13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
those Directives,
order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case C-289/95 ( )
                                                                                96/C 294/20
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States             By order of 3 May 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
are required to observe the time limits laid down in                  of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on       register of Case C-289/95 : Commission of the European
1 August 1992 ( Directive 91 /410/EEC ), on 31 December               Communities v. Italian Republic .
1993 ( Directives 93/86/EEC, 93/90/EEC, 93/105/EC ) and
on 21 March 1994 ( Directive 92/72/EEC ) without the                  (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of                     Second Chamber, Extended Composition:
                      Judges to Chambers
                                                                            Mr Bellamy, President of Chamber, and Messrs
                          ( 96/C 294/21 )                                   Kirschner, Briët, Kalogeropoulos and Potocki,
                                                                            Judges;
At its meeting on 12 September 1996 , the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2 ( 4 ) of Council                    Third Chamber:
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of the
 Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, for the                 Mr Vesterdorf, President of Chamber, and Messrs Briët
period between 1 October 1996 and 30 September 1997:                        and Potocki , Judges;
 A. To designate as Presidents of Chamber:                                  Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
     — Mr Vesterdorf                                                        Mr B. Vesterdorf, President of Chamber, Mr Briët, Ms
     — Mr García-Valdecasas                                                 Lindh, Mr Potocki and Mr Cooke, Judges;
     — Mr Lenaerts                                                          Fourth Chamber:
     — Mr Bellamy                                                           Mr Lenaerts , President of Chamber, Ms Lindh and Mr
                                                                            Cooke , Judges ;
 B. To assign the Members of the Court of First Instance to
     the Chambers as follows :                                              Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
     First Chamber:                                                         Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh, Mr
                                                                            Azizi , Mr Cooke and Mr Jaeger, Judges;
     President Saggio, Ms Tiili and Mr Moura Ramos,
     Judges;                                                                Fifth Chamber:
     First Chamber, Extended Composition:                                   Mr García-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, and
     President Saggio, Mr Kirschner, Mr Kalogeropoulos,                     Messrs Azizi and Jaeger, Judges ;
     Ms Tiili and Mr Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                            Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
     Second Chamber:
                                                                             Mr R. García-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, Ms
     Mr Bellamy, President of Chamber, Mr Kirschner and                     Tiili, Mr Azizi, Mr Moura Ramos and Mr Jaeger,
     Mr Kalogeropoulos , Judges;                                            Judges .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 August 1995 in the case of Dr Friedrich Wilhelm Kremzow, intervener: Dr Wilfried Ludwig Weh, v. Republic of Austria (Case C-299/95)

text:
11 . 11 . 95                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 299/ 11
2 . Where a scheme has been commercially devised and                                 has found that, in the criminal proceedings, the
      marketed whereunder purchases made in Member                                   national court was in breach of the procedural
      State B for the personal use of a private individual in                        safeguards       enshrined     in   Article  6  of  the
      Member State A are made by an agent for that                                   Convention ?
      individual and those purchases are transported from
      Member State B to Member State A as a result of                           4. Is the legal entity against which proceedings have
      arrangements made by such an agent, does Directive                             been brought for State liability entitled to plead
      92/ 12/EEC have the effect of precluding the charging of                       that the punishment would have been on no
     excise duty on those purchases in Member State A ?                              different a scale if the violation of Article 6 of the
                                                                                Convention found by the Court of Human Rights
(') Council Directive 92/ 12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the                          had not occurred , although the Austrian law of
    general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on                  criminal procedure — to date — does not provide
    the holding, movement and monitoring of such products                            in such cases for proceedings for the revision of a
    ( OJ No L 76 , 23 . 3 . 1992 , p. 1 ).                                           judgment or other amending proceedings by means
                                                                                of which the procedural error could have been
                                                                                remedied ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                            5 . Does the burden of proving the causal connection
                                                                                between     the      violation   of Article   6  of the
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 August 1995 in the
case of Dr Friedrich Wilhelm Kremzow, intervener: Dr                                 Convention and the deprivation of the plaintiff's
           Wilfried Ludwig Weh, v. Republic of Austria                               liberty fall on the plaintiff or does the burden of
                                                                                proof in respect of this defect fall on the defendant
                             ( Case C-299/95 )                                       legal entity ?'
                               ( 95/C 299/ 17 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster
Gerichtshof ( Austrian Supreme Court ) of 29 August 1995 ,                 Action brought on 20 September 1995 by Commission of
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 September                   the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr. Friedrich                                               Germany
Wilhelm Kremzow, intervener : Dr Wilfried Ludwig Weh, v.                                            ( Case C-301 /95 )
Republic of Austria , on the following questions :                                                     ( 95/C 299/ 18 )
A. ' Are all or at least the substantive-law provisions of the             An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      European Convention for the Protection of Human                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( the Convention ) —                Communities on 20 September 1995 by the Commission of
      including the provisions of Articles 5 , 6 and 53 of the             the European Communities , represented by Dr Gotz zur
       Convention which are relevant to the proceedings                    Hausen , Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for
       before the Oberster Gerichtshof — part of Community                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
       law ( Article 164 of the EC Treaty ), with the result that          Cruz, of the Commission 's legal Service , Wagner Centre
      the Court of Justice of the European Communities may                 C 254 , Kirchberg .
      give a preliminary ruling on their interpretation
       pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 1 77 of the EC           The applicant claims that the Court should :
      Treaty ?'
                                                                           1 . declare that, by
B. The following further questions are referred to the
       Court of Justice of the European Communities for a                      — failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply
       preliminary ruling only in the event that Question A is                     with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
       answered in the affirmative — at least as regards                           on the assessment of certain public and private
       Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention :                                        projects on the environment (') within the
                                                                                prescribed period ,
       ' 1 . Are national courts bound by judgments of the
                                                                               — failing to communicate to the Commission all the
             European Court of Human Rights finding
             violations of the Convention at least in so far as                    measures which it has taken in order to comply with
                                                                                the Directive,
             they may not take the view that the conduct of State
             institutions to which the finding of a violation                  — failing to provide for an environmental impact
             relates was in accordance with the Convention ?                       assessment to be carried out for all projects in respect
                                                                                of which such an assessment is to be carried out
         2 . Are claims for compensation for damage based on                       under the Directive and for which the development
             Article 5 ( 5 ) of the Convention precluded where the                 consent procedure was commenced after 3 July
             damage is derived from a decision of the Oberster                      1988 ,
             Gerichtshof ?
                                                                               — failing to provide that all the projects set out in
         3 . Is detention within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a )              Annex II to the Directive must be examined in order
             of the Convention contrary to the Convention ex                       to determine whether they are likely to have
             tunc where the European Court of Human Rights                         significant effects on the environment,


C 102/32              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  8.4.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-161/99 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-181/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 102/65)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/66)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 1 February 2000, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  By order of 1 February 2000, the President of the Fifth
the register of Case T-161/99: Navigazione libera del Golfo               Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
S.p.A. (N.L.G.) v Commission of the European Communities.                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-181/99: Centro di Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio
                                                                          74 v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case C-438/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 November 2009 — Bogusław Juliusz Dankowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 November 2009 — Bogusław Juliusz Dankowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   (Case C-438/09)
   2010/C 37/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bogusław Juliusz Dankowski

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the rules of the common system of VAT, in particular Article 17(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Directive 77/388/EEC), (1) preclude legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person does not acquire the right to deduct input tax arising from a VAT invoice issued by a person who is not entered on the register of taxable persons for the purpose of tax on goods and services?

               2.

               Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that:

                           (a)

                           there is no doubt that the transactions indicated on the VAT invoice are subject to VAT and that they have actually been carried out;

                           (b)

                           the invoice contained all the details required under Community legislation;

                           (c)

                           a restriction on the taxable person’s right to deduct input tax arising from an invoice issued by an unregistered person operated in national law prior to the date on which the Republic of Poland acceded to the Community?

               3.

               Does the answer to the first question depend on additional criteria being satisfied (for example, proof that the taxable person acted in good faith)?

      (1)  Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case F-101/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Cova v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations — Interim allowance — Inadmissible)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Cova v Commission
   (Case F-101/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations - Interim allowance - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 183/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Cova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, Advocate)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision to limit to one year the period during which the applicant, an official called upon to occupy, on a temporary basis, a post of head of unit, may benefit from the differential allowance provided for by Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007, p. 73.


title: Case T-103/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 May 2014  — Frucona Košice v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Alcohol and spirits — Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of any urgency — Prima facie case not made out)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 6 May 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
   (Case T-103/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Alcohol and spirits - Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of any urgency - Prima facie case not made out))
   2014/C 202/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok QC, B. Hartnett and J. Holmes, Barristers, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2013) 6261 final of 16 October 2013 on State aid SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005), implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s., in so far as it orders the Slovak Republic to recover the aid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.


title: Case C-532/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 — Article 11 — Invalidity of an import permit restricted to the specimens of animals actually affected by the ground of invalidity)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/20

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség
      (Case C-532/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora - Regulation (EC) No 338/97 - Article 11 - Invalidity of an import permit restricted to the specimens of animals actually affected by the ground of invalidity))
      (2014/C 395/25)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Sofia Zoo

         Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 11(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein must be interpreted as meaning that an import permit which does not comply with the conditions laid down in that regulation must be considered void only in respect of the specimens actually affected by the ground of invalidity of that import permit, those specimens then being the only ones which may be seized and possibly confiscated by the competent authority of the Member State where they are situated.

         (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 April 2004 inCase C-237/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Freiburger KommunalbautenGmbH Baugesellschaft & Co. KG v Ludwig Hofstetter, Ulrike Hofstetter (‘Directive93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Contract for the buildingand supply of a parking space — Reversal of the order of performance of contractualobligations provided for under national law — Clause obliging the consumerto pay the price before the seller or supplier has performed his obligations— Obligation on the seller or supplier to provide a guarantee’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-237/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co. KG v Ludwig Hofstetter, Ulrike Hofstetter
       (1)

   (‘Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Contract for the building and supply of a parking space - Reversal of the order of performance of contractual obligations provided for under national law - Clause obliging the consumer to pay the price before the seller or supplier has performed his obligations - Obligation on the seller or supplier to provide a guarantee’)
   (2004/C 106/19)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-237/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co. KG and Ludger Hofstetter, Ulrike Hofstetter – on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it has ruled:
   It is for the national court to decide whether a contractual term such as that at issue in the main proceedings satisfies the requirements for it to be regarded as unfair under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 October 1998 in the case of Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH against Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Case C-365/98)

text:
5.12.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 378/9
Action brought on 8 October 1998 by the Italian Republic                       distribution of traffic should be considered
   against the Commission of the European Communities                          contrary to Community law if they do not respect
                       (Case C-361/98)                                         the principle of proportionality; and therefore
                         (98/C 378/16)
                                                                          (b) in assessing in terms of proportionality the decrees
                                                                               of the Minister of Transport relating to the Milan
An action against the Commission of the European                               airport system, which constitute the grounds for the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                         prohibition imposed on the Italian Government.
the European Communities on 8 October 1998 by the
Italian Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia and Pier
Giorgio Ferri, Avvocati dello Stato, with an address for             3. In the alternative and in the event that the Court does
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue                       not uphold the complaints made in the foregoing
Marie-AdeÂlaïde.                                                          pleas, it is strongly disputed that the abovementioned
                                                                          national provisions, in imposing restrictions on the
                                                                          freedom to provide services, have contravened the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               principle of proportionality, as the Commission claims
                                                                          as a matter of principle applicable in this case.
Ð annul the contested decision of the Commission of
     16 September 1998;
                                                                     4. Paragraphs 29 to 46 of the contested decision concern
                                                                          the assessment of the Italian decrees from the point
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   of view of non-discrimination. The Commission's
                                                                          reasoning in alleging that the criteria laid down by the
                                                                          Italian provisions to identify the traffic to be relocated
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          from Linate to Malpensa airport are in breach of the
                                                                          prohibition under Article 8(1) appears flawed for the
1. In the view of the Italian Government, the                             following reasons.
     Commission's position on the extent of its power of
     decision finds no support in the legislative provision
                                                                          (a) The Commission held that the criterion based on
     which convers its competence (Article 8(3)) (1); the
                                                                               volume of traffic, even if it led to the selection of
     wording of Article 8(3) identifies the extent of its
                                                                               the Milan-Rome-Milan route as the only traffic
     supervisory power sufficiently clearly in terms of the
                                                                               retained at Linate airport, cannot be held to be
     need for a national measure to conform with the
                                                                               directly discriminatory in as much as that route is
     provisions of Article 8(1).
                                                                               open to all Community air carriers.
     The Commission interprets the provision conferring
                                                                          (b) The second and more serious flaw in the
     the power of decision widely, applying it to cases and
                                                                               Commission's reasoning is that it assessed the
     situations other than those contemplated therein.
                                                                               effects of relocating traffic at Malpensa airport in
                                                                               the light of the existing rather than the future
     Such an interpretation appears contrary to the                            situation: that is to say looking at the airport of
     principles of the Treaty as regards the institutional                     Malpensa as it was rather than as it will be after
     order of the Community and, in particular, to the                         the opening of the new facilities scheduled for
     principle of the strict legality of the Commission's                      25 October 1998.
     power of decision under Article 155 of the Treaty.
                                                                     (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (OJ L 240, 24.8.1992,
     The power conferred by Article 8(3) amounts to                      p. 8).
     accepting a breach of Community law at the expense
     of a State; the prohibition of discrimination in
     Article 8(1) is a legal rule in the application of which
     there is no discretion.
2. The second plea of the application alleges that the               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
     contested decision is not well-founded in law in as             Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 October 1998 in
     much as it determines that the Italian decrees under            the case of Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH against
     consideration contravene Community law in not                                        Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
     observing the principle of proportionality.
                                                                                (Case C-365/98)
     In the view of the Italian Government the decision is                                     (98/C 378/17)
     flawed:
     (a) in terms of its legal premisses on the basis of             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         which it is claimed that the national provisions on         European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/10              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
(Finance Court) Düsseldorf (Fourth Senate) of 5 October            Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Commission of
1998, received at the Court Registry on 12 October 1998,               the European Communities against French Republic
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Brinkmann
Tabakfabriken GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Bielefeld on the                                       (Case C-373/98)
following questions:                                                                        (98/C 378/19)
Does paragraph 4.1.2 of the Tabaksteuergesetz (Law on
Tobacco Tax) in the version current as at 21.12.1992
(Bundesgesetzblatt 1992, Part I, p. 2150) constitute an            An action against the French Republic was brought before
incorrect implementation of Article 3(1) of Council                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Directive 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                      16 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other               Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
than cigarettes (OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 10)?;                    Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
                                                                   civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                   Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
If the Court of Justice answers that question in the               office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
affirmative:                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Does Article 3(1) of that directive confer upon a person
chargeable to tobacco tax a direct right to be taxed in            The applicant claims that the Court should:
accordance with the directive, with the result that the
national courts are to set aside the minimum rate of tax
which is applied to cigars/cigarillos in Germany contrary
to the wording of the directive?'                                  1. declare that by failing to take all the necessary
                                                                        measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of
                                                                        27 April 1988 in Case 252/85 (1), the French Republic
                                                                        has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171(1)
                                                                        of the EC Treaty;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel,
                                                                   2. order the French Republic to pay a periodic penalty
Lyon (Seventh Chamber) by judgment of that court of
                                                                        payment of ECU 105 500 per day in respect of each
16 September 1998 in the case of MinisteÁre Public against
                                                                        day as from the notification of the abovementioned
    Yannick Geffroy Ð Civilly liable: SNC Casino France
                                                                        judgment until it complies with the obligations
                       (Case C-366/98)                                  referred to at paragraph 1;
                         (98/C 378/18)
                                                                   3. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
(Court of Appeal), Lyon (Seventh Chamber), of
16 September 1998, received at the Court Registry on               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
14 October 1998, for the preliminary ruling in the case of
MinisteÁre Public (Public Prosecutor's Office) v. Yannick
Geffroy Ð Civilly responsible: SNC Casino France, on the
                                                                   Ð The Commission finds that in so far as it is aware:
following question:
Do the combined provisions of Article 30 of the EC                      Ð the list of protected bird species the taking or
Treaty and Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of                    keeping of whose eggs or the destruction or
18 December 1978. On the approximation of the laws of                       removal of whose nests must be prohibited still
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation                   does not include all those mentioned in Council
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate                      Directive 79/409/EEC (2);
consumer (1) preclude the application of national
legislation such as that contained in Decree No 84-1147
of 7 December 1984, applying the Law of 1 August 1905                   Ð the bird species the keeping of which is prohibited
which was applicable at the time, as amended by Article                     under French legislation have still not been defined
L. 213-1 et seq. of the Code de la Consommation                             in a manner which corresponds exactly with the
(Consumer Code)?                                                            requirements of the directive.
(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1.
                                                                   Ð In fixing the amount of the periodic penalty payment
                                                                        which it proposes to impose, the Commission has


title: Case T-703/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Liberbank v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/47

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Liberbank v Commission
   (Case T-703/13)
   2014/C 52/90
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Liberbank, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


C 144/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-425/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-369/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/53)                                                   (2002/C 144/56)
By order of 11 December 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
from the register of Case C-425/99 (Referral for a preliminary      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
ruling by the Bundessozialgericht): Akhtar Seyed Abbasy v           register of Case C-369/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank                     Council of the European Union.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-387/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-29/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/54)                                                   (2002/C 144/57)
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-29/00: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-387/00: European Parliament v
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-321/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-393/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/55)                                                   (2002/C 144/58)
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-321/00: Federal Republic of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                   from the register of Case C-393/00: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-498/12: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/29

         Order of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission
   (Case T-498/12) (1)

   2013/C 189/61
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-337/08: Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a reindeer made of chocolate)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/17

         Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a reindeer made of chocolate)
   (Case T-337/08)
   (2008/C 260/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2008 (Appeal Case R 780/2005-4); and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A three-dimensional mark, representing a reindeer made of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 (Application No 4 098 489).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character and its availability does not have to be preserved.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-511/09 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2009 by Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-296/06: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/24

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2009 by Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-296/06: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-511/09 P)
   2010/C 37/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd (represented by: P. Bentley QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 in Case T-296/06, Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg., Co., Ltd. v Council of the European Union, in so far as it rejects the Appellant's first part of its first plea at first instance;

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 (1) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on LAMs produced by the Appellant in excess of the amount of duty that would be payable if the contested adjustment to the export price had not been made; and

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings including the proceedings at first instance

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment fails to give the correct legal effect to the notion of normal value as defined by Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 384/96 (2), as amended, on the protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. As a result, the contested judgment draws the erroneous conclusion that the analogue normal value determined in accordance with that provision necessarily corresponds to the point where the relevant products leave the production line in China, even though the contested judgment itself finds that SG&A for both domestic and export sales are incurred not by the company in China, but by related companies in a market economy country, Hong Kong. This erroneous conclusion leads the contested judgment to infringe Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 384/96, as amended, by upholding the Institutions’ adjustment to the export price consisting in a deduction of the SG&A and profits of the related companies in Hong Kong.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 of 24 July 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China
   OJ L205 p.1

      (2)  OJ L56, p.1


title: Case T-230/07: Action brought on 2 July 2007 — Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve v OHIM — Ester C (ESTER-E)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/43

         Action brought on 2 July 2007 — Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve v OHIM — Ester C (ESTER-E)
   (Case T-230/07)
   (2007/C 199/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ester C Company (Prescott, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal R 737/2006-2 of 17 April 2007;

               —

               order the defendant and — if applicable — Ester C Company to pay all the costs (jointly and severally).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The Ester C Company

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ESTER-E’ for goods and services in Class 3 and 5 — application No 3163946

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve SA

      Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative mark ‘ESTEVE’ for goods in Class 1, 5 and 42 and the national figurative mark ‘ESTEVE’ and ‘ESTEVE-LABORATORIO DEL DR. ESTEVE S.A.’ for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-195/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-195/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 366/51
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case T-510/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/28

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-510/13)
   2013/C 336/60
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/260/13, 261/13, 262/13, 263/13, 264/13, 265/13 and 266/13 to draw up reserve lists for the recruitment of Danish-language translators, English-language translators, French-language translators, Italian-language translators, Maltese-language translators, Dutch-language translators and Slovenian-language translators, published in the
                     Official Journal of the European Union No C 199 A of 11 July 2013;

               —

               order to the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-275/13 Italy v Commission.


title: Case F-52/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7.11.2013 Cortivo v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Correction coefficient — Member State of residence — Concept — Principal residence — Residence shared between Member States — Documents in support — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/32

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7.11.2013
      Cortivo v Parliament
      (Case F-52/12) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Correction coefficient - Member State of residence - Concept - Principal residence - Residence shared between Member States - Documents in support - Legitimate expectations)
      (2014/C 71/62)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Maria Luisa Cortivo (Sagone, France) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment, first, of the decision fixing the applicant’s main place of residence in Luxembourg; and, second, of the decision modifying the applicant’s pension entitlements by withdrawing the correction coefficient for France as from 1 January 2010.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the application;

                  2.

                  Orders Ms Cortivo to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012 p. 22.


title: Case T-61/14: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Balaguer (icexpresso + energy coffee) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark icexpresso + energy coffee — Earlier Community word marks X-PRESSO MONSTER, HAMMER M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY and MIDNIGHT M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Balaguer (icexpresso + energy coffee)
   (Case T-61/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark icexpresso + energy coffee - Earlier Community word marks X-PRESSO MONSTER, HAMMER M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY and MIDNIGHT M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Luis Yus Balaguer (Movera, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2013 (Case R 821/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mr Luis Yus Balaguer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monster Energy Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


               15.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 33/6

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 9 October 2006 in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v Staten v/Finansdepartementet

   (Case E-4/06)
   (2007/C 33/04)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 9 October 2006 of Borgarting Lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 October 2006, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v Staten v/Finansdepartementet (The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Finance) on the following question:

               1.

               What are the legal basis and the prerequisites for a claim of reimbursement of taxes which a Member State has collected in conflict with provisions of the EEA Agreement?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 September 1995 in Case T-276/94: Adam Buick v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Leave on personal grounds - Reinstatement)

text:
No C 268/22           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
Decision 92/212/EEC of 25 March 1992 relating to a                   2 , orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
( IV/30.717-A — Eurocheque : Helsinki Agreement, OJ No               (M OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
L 95 , 1992 , p. 50 ), that amount having been set at ECU
2 000 000 by the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance on 23 February 1994 in Joined Cases T-39/92 and
T-40/92 Groupement des Cartes Bancaires ' CB' and
Europay International SA v. Commission [ 1994] ECR II,
p . 49, and in which it applied the ECU 2 000 000 paid by the
applicant first against the interest and then against the             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
principal sum of the fine plus default interest — the Court of                           of 13 September 1995
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, R.                 in Case T-276/94 : Adam Buick v. Commission of the
Garcia-Valdecasas, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio                           European Communities (')
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              (Officials     —    Leave on personal grounds                  —
judgment on 14 July 1995 , in which it:                                                       Reinstatement)
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/48 )
1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 , orders the applicant to bear the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-276/94 : Adam Buick, an official of the
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                    Commission of the European Communities, currently on
                                                                     leave on personal grounds, resident in London, represented
                                                                     by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     SARL, 1 rue Glesener, against Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
                                                                     application, first, for the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                     decision not to reinstate the applicant to the post at grade
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             A 7/A 4 ( COM/ 1816/93 ) declared vacant in the ' G-24
                                                                     Coordination Unit ' of the Directorate-General for External
                         of 14 July 1995
                                                                     Economic Relations and, secondly, for damages — the
in Case T-291 /94: Zudella Patricia Pimley-Smith v.                  Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of J.
        Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                 Biancarelli ( President of the Chamber ), C. P. Briët and C. W.
 (Officials — Competitions — Decision of the Selection               Bellamy, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Board stating that a candidate has failed the oral tests —           has given a judgment on 13 September 1995 , in which
 Extent of the duty to provide a statement of reasons —              it :
Extent to which the Court may exercise its powers ofreview
 in the absence of any infringement of the procedural                 1 , annuls the Commission's decision not to reinstate the
                               rules)                                     applicant to the post at grade A 7/A 4 (COM/1816/93)
                          ( 95/C 268/47 )                                 declared vacant in the ' G-24 Coordination Unit ' of
                                                                          D G I;
                (Language of the case: French)                       2 , orders the Commission to compensate the applicant for
                                                                          the material damage directly suffered by him as the
                                                                          result of the adoption of the annulled decision;
 In Case T-291 /94 , Zudella Patricia Pimley-Smith, resident in
 Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure              3 , orders the parties to notify to the Court ofFirst Instance,
 Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                within three months from the date of notification of this
 Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener v.                   judgment, the amount of principal and interest to be
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:                          paid to the applicant by way of compensation, if such
 Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for the annulment of the              agreement is reached;
 decision of the Selection Board in Open Competition
 EUR/B/30, notified to the applicant on 29 November 1993 ,            4 , orders the parties, in default of agreement, to present
 not to include her name in the list of successful candidates             submissions to the Court ofFirst Instance, supported by
 and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of the                        figures, within the same period;
 Commission decision of 21 June 1994 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second         5 , reserves the costs .
 Chamber ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, acting as
 President, A. Saggio and V. Tiili , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
 has given a judgment on 14 July 1995 , in which it:                  (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
  1 , dismisses the application;