title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2003 in Case T-334/02 Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE against the Commission of the European Communities (FEOGA — Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed — Request for abolition of Community financial assistance — Inaction on the part of the Commission — Action for failure to act)

text:
C 85/26                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           3.4.2004
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    established in Bremen (Germany), and Hauptverband der
                                                                              Deutschen Bauindustrie eV, established in Berlin (Germany),
                      of 18 December 2003                                     represented by Professor H.-P. Schneider, against the Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner
in Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission                           and A. Böhlke) — application under Article 243 EC for interim
                of the European Communities (1)                               measures, seeking extension of the period of coexistence of
                                                                              national standards and European standards EN 13162:2001 to
(Officials — Investigation carried out by the European Anti-                  13171:2001 which is provided for by the Commission
Fraud Office (OLAF) — Duty to assist — Action for                             Communication of 22 May 2003 published in the framework
annulment and for damages clearly inadmissible and clearly                    of the implementation of Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ
                         unfounded in law)                                    2003 C 120, p. 17) — the President of the Court of First
                                                                              Instance made an order on 28 November 2003 the operative
                           (2004/C 85/50)                                     part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)                            1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                              2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino, official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brus-
sels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H.-
P. Hartvig and J. Currall) — application, first, for annulment of
a series of measures relating to investigations carried out by
the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to requests for                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials
of the European Communities and, second, for compensation                                            of 2 December 2003
in respect of the alleged damage — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President,                 in Case T-334/02 Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai
A. W. H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                  Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE against the Com-
made an order on 18 December 2003, the operative part of                                mission of the European Communities (1)
which is as follows:
                                                                              (FEOGA — Improvement of the conditions under which
1.    The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible and as clearly          agricultural products are processed and marketed — Request
      unfounded in law.                                                       for abolition of Community financial assistance — Inaction
2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs, including those             on the part of the Commission — Action for failure to act)
      incurred in the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-215/02
      R and Case C-471/02 P(R).                                                                          (2004/C 85/52)
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.                                                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                              In Case T-334/02: Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai
                                                                              Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE, established in Athens
                                                                              (Greece), represented by I. Stamoulis, lawyer, with an address
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the
                             INSTANCE                                         European Communities (Agent: M. Kondou-Durande) — appli-
                                                                              cation for a declaration under Article 232 EC that the
                      of 28 November 2003                                     Commission failed to act in that, first, it did not initiate the
                                                                              procedure for failure to fulfil obligations in relation to the
in Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others against                        Hellenic Republic for a breach of Community law which
       the Commission of the European Communities                             harmed the applicant’s economic interests and, second, it did
                                                                              not abolish ex tunc the financial assistance of the European
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility —                           Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) which
                              Urgency)                                        was granted for the purposes of the co-financing of the
                                                                              applicant’s investment project as approved by Decision
                           (2004/C 85/51)                                     No 324986/505 of the Greek authorities of 17 February 1994
                                                                              — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
                   (Language of the case: German)                             J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                              Registrar, made an order on 2 December 2003, the operative
                                                                              part of which is as follows:
In Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt, resident in Dallgow-
Döberitz (Germany), Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG,                      1.    The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.
 ---pagebreak--- 3.4.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/27
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the             Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the opposition
      Commission.                                                         sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      partial rejection of the application
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.                                                    Appeal:                       in respect of goods and services in
                                                                                Classes 9 and 35. For the rest,
                                                                                dismissal of the appeal lodged by
                                                                                the applicant
                                                                          Grounds of claim:             —     The trade mark opposed is a
                                                                                well-known mark;
Action brought on 1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert
René S. à r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                              —     The trade mark opposed is
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                            also       protected   against
                                                                                exploitation outside the area
                                                                                of similarity in respect of
                         (Case T-336/03)                                                                      goods and services;
                          (2004/C 85/53)                                                                —     There is a significant simi-
                                                                                larity between the marks.
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                       been drafted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert René S. à r.l., of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, avocat. A further party to the                                        (Case T-9/04)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Orange A/S, of
Copenhagen.                                                                                (2004/C 85/54)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the decision adopted on 14 July 2003 by the
      Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      No R 559/2002-4;                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                  cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting
Applicant for the Com-         Orange A/S                                       his request;
munity trade mark:
                                                                          —     Declare that on 29 October 2001, the applicant, then in
The Community trade            the verbal mark ‘MOBILIX’ for                    the service of the Angola Delegation, was the victim of
mark applied for:              goods and services in Classes 9,                 an accident at work, which occurred therein;
                               16, 35, 37, 38 and 42 — Appli-
                               cation No 671 396                          —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
ings:
Trade-mark right               the national verbal and Com-               The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to treat
opposed:                       munity mark ‘OBELIX’ for goods             as an accident at work, with the consequential benefits
                               and services in, inter alia, Class-        provided for in the Staff Regulations in relation to insurance
                               es 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42                against risks of occupational accidents and diseases, the


title: Case C-513/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) — Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (Capital movements — Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) — Inheritance tax — Legal fiction that a national of a Member State who dies within 10 years of ceasing to reside in that Member State is deemed to have been resident there at the time of his death — Non-member State)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) — Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen
   (Case C-513/03) (1)

   (Capital movements - Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) - Inheritance tax - Legal fiction that a national of a Member State who dies within 10 years of ceasing to reside in that Member State is deemed to have been resident there at the time of his death - Non-member State)
   (2006/C 131/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch — Interpretation of Articles 57(1) EC and 58(3) EC and of Declaration (No 7) on Article 58 (formerly Article 73d) of the Treaty establishing the European Community annexed to the Final Act of the Maastricht Treaty — Tax provision of a Member State concerning inheritance duty under which a national of that State who had resided in that State and died within ten years of leaving the national territory is deemed to have been resident in that State for purposes of the application of that duty — National residing in a non-member country at the time of death
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that in question in the main proceedings, by which the estate of a national of that Member State who dies within 10 years of ceasing to reside in that Member State is to be taxed as if that national had continued to reside in that State, while enjoying relief in respect of inheritance taxes levied by other States.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 03.04.2004.


title: Case C-345/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 — Import of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 11(3) and (9) — Partial interim review)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/3

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages
   (Case C-345/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 - Import of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 11(3) and (9) - Partial interim review))
   (2016/C 326/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, and D. O’Keefe, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, S. Boelaert and E. McGovern, acting as Agents), European Commission, (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Euroalliages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-98/03: Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Alfa Acciai S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.5.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/45
Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Ferriera Valsabbia                        Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Alfa Acciai S.p.A.
S.p.A. and Valsabbia Investimenti S.p.A. against the Com-                      against the Commission of the European Communities
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-98/03)
                            (Case T-97/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/84)
                           (2003/C 112/83)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  European Communities on 5 March 2003 by Alfa Acciai
European Communities on 5 March 2003 by Ferriera Valsabbia                  S.p.A., represented by Denis Fosselard, Piero Fattori and
S.p.A. and Valsabbia Investimenti S.p.A, represented by Denis               Gennaro d’Andria, lawyers.
Fosselard, Piero Fattori and Gennaro d’Andria, lawyers.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
—     annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the                applicant;
      applicants;
                                                                            —     in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the Decision in so
—     in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the Decision in so
                                                                                far as it alleges that the applicant participated in an
      far as it alleges that the applicants participated in an
                                                                                infringement prior to 13 February 1996;
      infringement prior to 13 February 1996;
                                                                            —     annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
—     annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
                                                                                applicant;
      applicants;
—     in the alternative, amend Article 2 of the Decision so as             —     in the alternative, amend Article 2 of the Decision so as
      to cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the                   to cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the
                                                                                applicant;
      applicants;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.             —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
This action is brought against the same Decision as has already             This action is brought against the same Decision as has already
been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission (1). The                  been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission ( 1). The
pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put                    pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in that case.                                                       forward in that case.
( 1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                             (1 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal.


title: Case C-486/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement — Articles 54 and 55(1)(a) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Whether an accused may be prosecuted in a Member State after criminal proceedings brought against him in another Member State have been terminated by the public prosecutor’s office without a detailed investigation — No examination of the merits of the case)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski
   (Case C-486/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement - Articles 54 and 55(1)(a) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Whether an accused may be prosecuted in a Member State after criminal proceedings brought against him in another Member State have been terminated by the public prosecutor’s office without a detailed investigation - No examination of the merits of the case))
   (2016/C 335/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

      Party in the main proceedings

   Piotr Kossowski

      Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principle of ne bis in idem laid down in Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, which was signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the public prosecutor terminating criminal proceedings and finally closing the investigation procedure against a person, albeit with the possibility of its being reopened or annulled, without any penalties having been imposed, cannot be characterised as a final decision for the purposes of those articles when it is clear from the statement of reasons for that decision that the procedure was closed without a detailed investigation having been carried out; in that regard, the fact that neither the victim nor a potential witness was interviewed is an indication that no such investigation took place.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-300/95: Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 7 (e) of Directive 85/374/EEC - Incorrect implementation - Defence precluding liability for defective products - State of scientific and technical knowledge)

text:
No C 212/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 7 . 97
No L 310, 14 . 12 . 1993 , p. 44 ) — the Court ( Sixth                  ruling, give the interpretative guidance necessary for the
Chamber), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the                   national      court   to     determine    whether that  national
Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                        legislation is in conformity with the fundamental rights
Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch                    whose observance the Court ensures, such as those
( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,                     deriving in particular from the Convention for the
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for                Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
which it :
                                                                        ( ! ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
1 . dismisses the application;
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 May 1997
                                                                        in Case C-300/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                Northern Ireland (')
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations —
                           ( Fifth Chamber)                              Article 7 (e) of Directive 85/374/EEC — Incorrect
                           of 29 May 1997                                implementation — Defence precluding liability for
                                                                         defective products — State of scientific and technical
 in Case C-299/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                              knowledge)
 the Oberster Gerichtshof): Friedrich Kremzow, Wilfried
           Weh, intervening v. Republik Osterreich ( ' )                                              ( 97/C 212/04 )
  (Article 164 of the EC Treaty — European Convention on
 Human Rights — Deprivation of liberty — Right to a fair                                 (Language of the case: English)
  trial — Effects of a judgment of the European Court of
                            Human Rights)
                                                                         In Case C-300/95 : Commission of the European
                             ( 97/C 212/03 )
                                                                          Communities ( Agent: Peter Oliver, assisted by Mark
                                                                         Mildred, Solicitor ) against United Kingdom of Great
                 (Language of the case: German)                           Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins,
                                                                          assisted by K. Paul E. Lasok, QC ) — application for a
                                                                          declaration that, by failing to take all the measures
                                                                          necessary to implement Council Directive 85/374/EEC of
     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws,
            published in the European Court Reports)                      regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
                                                                          States concerning liability for defective products ( OJ No
  In Case C-299/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to                   L 210, 7. 8 . 1985 , p. 29 ), in particular Article 7 ( e )
  Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Oberster Gerichts                thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
  hof ( Supreme Court) ( Austria ), for a preliminary ruling in           obligations under that Directive and under the EC Treaty
  the proceedings pending before that court between                       — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of: J. C.
  Friedrich Kremzow, Wilfried Weh, intervening and                        Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
                                                                           Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and M.
   Republik Osterreich — on the interpretation of Article 164
   of the EC Treaty and a number of provisions of the                     Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
   Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                       General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the
   Fundamental Freedoms — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
                                                                           which it :
   composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),
   President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward,
   J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola,
   Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator,
                                                                            1 . dismissed the application;
   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997,
   in which it has ruled :
                                                                           2 . ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
    Where national legislation is concerned with a situation                (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
   which, as in the case at issue in the main proceedings,
   does not fall within the field of application of Community
    law, the Court cannot, in a reference for a preliminary


title: Case C-508/11 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2011 by ENI SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-39/07 ENI v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/12

         Appeal brought on 3 October 2011 by ENI SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-39/07 ENI v Commission
   (Case C-508/11 P)
   2011/C 340/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: ENI SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti, D. Durante, R. Arras, E. D’Amico, I. Perego, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by ENI in Case T-39/07 and, consequently:

                           —

                           set aside in whole or in part the Commission Decision of 29 November 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR); and/or

                           —

                           annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on ENI by the Commission Decision of 29 November 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR);

               —

               in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by ENI in Case T-39/07 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-39/07.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the first ground of appeal, which is subdivided into four parts, ENI claims that the General Court erred in law on a number of points and acted in breach of its obligation to state reasons, and also of the fundamental principles laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECHR, to the detriment of ENI’s rights of defence. ENI submits that:

               —

               the presumption that a parent company has actually exercised decisive influence is not justified in the light of the principles governing the attribution of antitrust liability and the principles governing presumptions, as they have evolved in the case-law of the ECHR; in any event, the General Court failed to rule on the arguments put forward by ENI at first instance concerning the scope of the requirement that decisive influence must actually have been exercised;

               —

               the evidence adduced by ENI for the purposes of rebutting the presumption of liability was not weighed correctly: the General Court disregarded the rules as developed in the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court itself;

               —

               albeit holding, on the basis of the case-law, that the presumption of liability is relative, the General Court distorted the true scope of that presumption when applying it, thereby requiring ENI to meet a standard of proof to the contrary which was impossible to satisfy and giving rise to the application of rules based on strict liability;

               —

               the General Court found, without stating the reasons for that finding, that it did not have to assess the arguments raised before it by ENI regarding the relevance of the principle of limited liability of companies for the purposes of attributing liability to the parent company by reason of the presumption that it had actually exercised decisive influence, and incorrectly applied the legal criteria derived from the case-law relating to corporate succession in competition law.

         By the second ground of appeal, which is subdivided into two parts, ENI claims that the General Court infringed Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and acted in breach of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons. In particular, ENI claims that the General Court:

               —

               assessed incorrectly the gravity of the infringement for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine, thereby denying — without stating reasons — the relevance of the evidence put forward on that point by ENI and of the arguments put forward regarding the disproportionate nature of the multiplier applied;

               —

               in disregard of the criteria derived from the case-law, based the exclusion of Syndial from the list of addressees of the contested decision on corporate succession, without taking account of the consequences entailed for the maximum amount of fine.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2002 in Case T-339/00: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 — Directive 98/8/EC — Biocidal products — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Person individually concerned)

text:
10.8.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 191/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by
                                                                          Eurobrom BV, established in Rijswijk (Netherlands), Lonza
                          of 5 June 2002                                  GmbH, established in Wuppertal (Germany), Arch Chemi-
                                                                          cals SA, established in Paris, Troy Chemical Company BV,
in Case T-198/00: Hershey Foods Corporation v Office                      established in Maassluis (Netherlands), represented by K. Van
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                     Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, with an address for service
                     and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                              in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities (Agents: R. Wainwright and L. Ström) — application
(Community trade mark — Figurative mark ‘Kiss device                      for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000
with plume’ — Right to be heard — Article 73 of Regulation                of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme
(EC) No 40/94 — Prior registration of the mark in certain                 referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the
                          Member States)                                  European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products
                                                                          (OJ 2000 L 228, p. 6) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                          (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
                         (2002/C 191/42)
                                                                          J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
                                                                          made an order on 29 April 2002, the operative part of which
                   (Language of the case: English)                        is as follows:
In Case T-198/00, Hershey Foods Corporation, established in               1.    The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.
Hershey, Pennsylvania (United States), represented by
R. Wyand, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,              2.    The applicant shall pay its own costs and those of the
v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                  Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, J. Miranda                      interim measures, but with the exception of those attributable
de Sousa and A. Di Carlo): Action brought against the decision                  to the interventions.
of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May                3.    The interveners shall pay their own costs, and shall jointly and
2000 (Case R 391/1999-3), the Court of First Instance (Second                   severally pay those incurred by the defendant as a result of their
Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-                     interventions.
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June 2002, in which
it:                                                                       (1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 27 May 2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in Case T-18/01 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                        of 29 April 2002
                                                                          (Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements
in Case T-339/00: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Ver-
                                                                          — Competition — Rejection of complaint — Action mani-
waltungs GmbH v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                festly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
                            munities (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 — Directive 98/8/EC —                                                 (2002/C 191/44)
Biocidal products — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility
               — Person individually concerned)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                         (2002/C 191/43)
                   (Language of the case: English)                        In Case T-18/01 Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
                                                                          Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John
                                                                          Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the European Com-
In Case T-339/00: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwal-                munities (Agent: P. Oliver), action for annulment of the
tungs GmbH, established in Kirchheimbolanden (Germany),                   Commission’s decision of 12 January 2001 rejecting the
represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers,                     applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged infringement of


title: Case T-127/05: Action brought on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine Osaühing against the Council of the European Union

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/38

         Action brought on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine Osaühing against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-127/05)
   (2005/C 115/67)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine Osaühing, established in Tartu (Estonia), represented by T. Sild and K. Martin, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos 2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 (1), as regards fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia;

               —

               annul Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 (2) of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks, as regards fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an Estonian fishing company which practises deep sea fishing in the area of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention. Estonia was a party to that Convention prior to its accession to the European Union. Article 6(9) of the Act of Accession of Estonia and the other new Member States to the European Union (3) provides that as from the date of accession, fisheries agreements concluded by the new Member States shall be managed by the Community and that the rights and obligations resulting for the new Member States from those agreements shall not be affected during the period in which the provisions of those agreements are provisionally maintained. It is in this context that the contested measures were issued, allocating Estonia fishing opportunities, measured in metric tons of allowable catch of certain stocks in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
   According to the applicant these allocations constitute only a fraction of what Estonia legally harvested before accession. On this basis the applicant contends that the contested measures violated Article 6(9) of the Act of Accession as well as the principle of proportionality, and should therefore be annulled.

      (1)  OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 4.

      (3)  OJ L 236, 23.09.2003.


title: Case T-312/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Interim measures) of 26 September 2008 — Ellinikos Niognomon v Commission (Application for interim measures — Directive 94/57/EC — Common rules and standards applicable to ship inspection and survey organisations — Withdrawal of recognition granted to such an organisation — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/40

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Interim measures) of 26 September 2008 — Ellinikos Niognomon v Commission
   (Case T-312/08 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Directive 94/57/EC - Common rules and standards applicable to ship inspection and survey organisations - Withdrawal of recognition granted to such an organisation - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 301/68)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ellinikos Niognomon AE (Piraeus, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of the letter of the Commission withdrawing the recognition granted to the applicant by Commission Decision 2005/623/EC of 3 August 2005 on the extension of the limited recognition of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (Ellinikos Niognomon AE) (OJ 2005 L 219, p. 43)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-735/16: Action brought on 22 October 2016 — CX v Commission

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/20

         Action brought on 22 October 2016 — CX v Commission
   (Case T-735/16)
   (2016/C 475/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CX (Bordeaux, France) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               In consequence:

                           —

                           annul the decision of 18 December 2015, reference Ares(2015)5952489, insofar as it imposes on the applicant a reduction in his remuneration;

                           —

                           annul the decision of 12 July 2016, reference HR.E.2/CB/sa/Ares(2016), served on the same date, by which the Appointing Authority rejects that part of the applicant’s claim, which he ground on 17 March 2016 under reference R/170/16, relating to the decision to reduce his remuneration;

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay the sums wrongfully withheld, together with legal penalties and interest;

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials, in particular of Article 24(1) of Annex IX to those Staff Regulations, which was committed by the Commission’s Appointing Authority by failing to set out in its decision the amount of the retention which it intended to make from the applicant’s remuneration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the obligation to state reasons as regards the actual grounds of that reduction in the remuneration, a failure which forms the basis of the unequal treatment suffered by the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an abuse of process and a misuse of powers, an abuse of office and of power, insofar as the contested decision constitutes a disguised disciplinary sanction.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the reasonable time principle, the principles of good faith and of sound administration, inasmuch as the matters raised by the defendant against the applicant date from 2001 and 2003, that is to say, more than 14 and 12 years before the contested decision.


title: Case T-386/05: Action brought on  10 October 2005  — Wilms v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/25

         Action brought on 10 October 2005 — Wilms v Commission
   (Case T-386/05)
   (2006/C 10/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Günter Wilms (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the formal proposal of the Director General of the Legal Service to award the applicant two Directorate-General priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise, which was confirmed and made definitive by the decision of the Director General rejecting his internal appeal;

               —

               annul the decision of the Director General of Personnel and Administration not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ (‘PPCP’) special priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise;

               —

               annul the decisions of the Director General of Personnel and Administration to award him a total of 17 points for the 2004 promotion exercise and a total of 36 points for the purpose of promotion to Grade A5 during that exercise; the list of officials who were awarded PPCPs; the merit list of Grade A6 officials for the 2004 promotion exercise after Promotion Committees; the list of officials promoted to Grade A5 for the 2004 promotion exercise and, in any event, the decision not to enter his name in those lists

               —

               annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant advances similar pleas to those advanced in Case T-311/04 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 44


title: Case C-159/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 1 April 2011 — Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce v Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others — Università del Salento

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 1 April 2011 — Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce v Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others — Università del Salento
   (Case C-159/11)
   2011/C 173/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce

      Defendants: Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce; Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; Associazione delle Organizzazioni di Ingegneri, di Architettura e di Consultazione Tecnico-Economica (Oice); Etacons Srl; Ing. Vito Prato Engineering Srl; Barletti — del Grosso & Associati Srl; Ordine degli Architetti della Provincia di Lecce; Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori (Cnappc)

      Intervener: Università del Salento

      Question referred

   Does Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) and, in particular, Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Article 2 and Article 28 of that directive and Categories 8 and 12 in Annex II thereto, preclude national legislation which permits written agreements to be entered into between two contracting authorities for the study of the seismic vulnerability of hospital buildings and its evaluation in the light of national regulations on the safety of structures and of strategic buildings in particular, for a consideration not exceeding the costs incurred in the performance of the service, where the authority responsible for performance is capable of acting in the capacity of an economic operator?

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-648/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALTOOLS) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark DUALTOOLS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Partial refusal of registration — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/52

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALTOOLS)
   (Case T-648/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark DUALTOOLS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myerlake Circle Clearwater, Florida, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by V. Melgar, and subsequently by H. O’Neill and M. Rajh, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2014 (Case R 398/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign DUALTOOLS as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Infusion Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-497/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Euro-Team Kft. v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Euro-Team Kft. v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
   (Case C-497/15)
   (2016/C 027/04)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Euro-Team Kft.

      Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must the requirement for proportionality laid down in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1) (‘the Eurovignette Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a system of penalties such as that laid down in Annex 9 to Decree No 410/2007 of 29 December on the list of traffic offences subject to the penalty of an administrative fine, the amount of the fines that may be imposed in the event of breach of the relevant provisions, the system of imposing those fines and the conditions for participating in controls [a közigazgatási bírsággal sújtandó közlekedési szabályszegések köréről, az e tevékenységekre vonatkozó rendelkezések megsértése esetén kiszabható bírságok összegéről, felhasználásának rendjéről és az ellenőrzésben történő közreműködés feltételeiről szóló 410/2007. (XII. 29.) Korm. Rendelet] (‘the Law on penalties’) which provides for the imposition of a fine at a certain amount — unrelated to the gravity of the offence — in the event of failure to comply with the requirements relating to the acquisition of a route ticket?

               2)

               Does Paragraph 9 of the Law on penalties comply with the requirement imposed by Article 9a of the Eurovignette Directive, according to which penalties established under national law must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive?

               3)

               Must the requirement for proportionality laid down in Article 9a of the Eurovignette Directive be interpreted as precluding, on the one hand, a system of penalties such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the strict liability of the person responsible for an offence and, on the other hand, the amount of the fine laid down under that system?

      (1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42).


title: Case T-205/11: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2012 — Germany v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Out of time — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/12

         Order of the General Court of 18 December 2012 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-205/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Out of time - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 55/21
   Language of the case: Germany

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-502/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from Vestre Landsret (Denmark) dated 18 August 2017, C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from Vestre Landsret (Denmark) dated 18 August 2017, C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-502/17)
   (2017/C 347/27)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring Court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parter

      Applicant: C&D Foods Acquisition ApS

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               1)

               Should Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a holding company, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is entitled to a full deduction of VAT on input services related to due diligence investigations before an envisaged, but not completed, sale of shares in a subsidiary to which the holding company supplies management and IT services that are subject to VAT?

               2)

               Is the answer to the above question affected by the fact that the price for the VAT taxable management and IT services, which the holding company supplies for the purposes of its economic activity, is a fixed amount corresponding to the holding company’s expenditure on employees’ salaries, with the addition of a ‘mark-up’ of 10 %?

               3)

               Irrespective of the answer to the foregoing questions, can a right of deduction exist if the consultancy costs at issue in the main proceedings are regarded as general costs, and if so, on what conditions?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)


title: Case C-380/16: Action brought on 8 July 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/14

         Action brought on 8 July 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-380/16)
   (2016/C 314/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and M. Wasmeier, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC) by excluding travel services used by taxable persons for their business from the special scheme for travel agents and allowing travel agents, in so far as the special scheme is applicable to them, to determine on a flat-rate basis the tax assessment base for groups of services and for each taxable period;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the scheme laid down in Germany for the calculation of value added tax on travel services is not consistent with Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. (1) That directive provides, in Articles 306 to 310, a special scheme under which the travel services provided by a travel agent to a customer are to be treated as a single service. German law unlawfully departs from that scheme.
   First, it is not permitted to exclude taxable persons who use travel services for their business from the application of the special scheme. The Court has already ruled in its judgment of 26 September 2013 in Case C-189/11, (2)
      Commission v Spain, that the special scheme must be applied not only to services provided to private final consumers but also to services provided to taxable traders. It is not open to the Member States to restrict the application of that scheme solely to the former category.
   Second, the method of calculation provided for under the German law on turnover tax is incompatible with Directive 2006/112/EC. Pursuant to Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of that directive, the taxable amount must be determined separately for each journey. German law, by contrast, permits a flat-rate calculation of the profit margin for ‘groups of services’ or for all journeys within a specified period of time. The Court also held in the abovementioned judgment that a flat-rate calculation of that kind is not consistent with the common system of value added tax.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

      (2)  EU:C:2013:587.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-17/04 Front national and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Act against which proceedings may be brought — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 11 July 2005
   in Case T-17/04 Front national and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

   (Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Act against which proceedings may be brought - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 229/45)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-17/04: Front national, established in Saint-Cloud (France), Marie-France Stirbois, residing at Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Bruno Gollnisch, residing at Limonest (France), Carl Lang, residing at Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez, residing at Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, residing at Overijse (Belgium), Koen Dillen, residing at Antwerp (Belgium), Mario Borghezio, residing at Turin (Italy), represented by W. de Saint-Just, lawyer, against European Parliament (agents: MM. H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, with an address for service in Luxembourg), and Council of the European Union (agents: M. Sims and. I. Díez Parra) — application for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2002 L 297, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               the applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.


title: Election of Presidents of Chambers

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/2

         Election of Presidents of Chambers
   2009/C 267/04
   At a meeting on 7 October 2009, the Judges of the Court of Justice, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Tizzano, Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lenaerts and Mr Bonichot as Presidents of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Chambers of five Judges respectively, for a period of three years expiring on 6 October 2012.
   At a meeting on 8 October 2009, the Judges of the Court of Justice, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Levitz, Ms Lindh, Ms Silva de Lapuerta and Ms Toader as Presidents of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers of three Judges respectively, for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2010.


title: Case C-282/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 6 June 2012 — Fazenda Pública v ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 6 June 2012 — Fazenda Pública v ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda
   (Case C-282/12)
   2012/C 250/18
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Fazenda Pública, ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda

      Defendants: ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda, Fazenda Pública

      Question referred

   Do Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU (Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that contained in Paragraph 61 CIRC (Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Coletivas) in the wording resulting from [Decree-Law No] 198/2001 of [3 July 2001], as amended by [Law No] 60 A/2005 of 30 [December 2005] (State Budget Act for 2006), which, in connection with the indebtedness of a taxable person residing in Portugal to an entity of a non-member country with which it maintains special relations within the meaning of Paragraph 58(4) CIRC, does not allow the setting off against tax of interest relating to the part of its indebtedness regarded as excessive under Paragraph 61(3) CIRC, borne and paid by a taxable person residing within national territory on the same basis as interest borne and paid by a taxable person residing in Portugal who is found to be excessively indebted to an entity residing in Portugal with which it maintains special relations?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 1999 in Case T-153/99, Luciano Simonella v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Non-promotion — Action for annulment and damages — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 102/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
                     of 16 December 1999
                                                                        — declare that the derogation provided for in Article 1(7) of
                                                                            Council Regulation No 1804/99 is severable in nature, and
in Case T-153/99, Luciano Simonella v Commission of the                     annul that derogation;
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials — Non-promotion — Action for annulment and                   — order the Council to pay all the costs.
            damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
                        (2000/C 102/54)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        The applicants in the present case are professional bodies
In Case T-153/99, Luciano Simonella, official of the Com-               recognised by the French Ministry of Agriculture and compris-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Howald                 ing regional groups of organic farmers, with the object of
(Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented by Rosario Grasso,             defending and representing their interests and promoting
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                   organic farming.
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 35 Rue Notre Dame, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Christine
Berardis-Kayser and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application, first, for        The application is directed against Council Regulation (EC)
annulment of the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s          No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation
complaint lodged on 25 November 1998 and, second, for                   (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural
compensation for the material and non-material damage                   products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
suffered — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),                products and foodstuffs to include livestock production,
composed of J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and                   inasmuch as it provides for the insertion in Article 5 of
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on           Regulation No 2092/91 of a derogation permitting the con-
16 December 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:            tinued use, until 1 July 2006, of trade marks referring to the
                                                                        organic production method in order to designate products
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                             which are not produced by that method, provided that a clear
                                                                        indication is given of the fact that the products are not
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                        produced according to the organic production method as
                                                                        prescribed by that regulation.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                        In support of their claims, the applicants plead, first of all,
                                                                        infringement of the Community rules on competition, in that
                                                                        the derogation in issue will have the immediate effect of
                                                                        placing undertakings producing organic foodstuffs at a disad-
                                                                        vantage, by enabling undertakings which are not in any way
Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Fédération                        engaged in organic farming to use trade marks referring to the
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France                organic production method.
(FNAB) and Others against the Council of the European
                               Union
                                                                        Moreover, the confusion created in the mind of the consumer
                        (Case T-268/99)                                 by the new Article 5 of Regulation No 2092/91 also violates
                                                                        the principle of consumer protection, as defined in Article
                        (2000/C 102/55)                                 3(t) of the Treaty. In the applicants’ view, a reasonably
                                                                        well-informed consumer is likely to treat products bearing an
                                                                        indication which refers to the organic production method as
                  (Language of the case: French)                        comparable to products which have in fact been produced by
                                                                        that method. Consequently, such trade marks, when applied
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 to products which have not in any way been produced by
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              organic methods, will inevitably give rise to confusion in the
Communities on 15 November 1999 by the Fédération                       minds of consumers.
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France
(FNAB) and the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB),         The applicants further plead:
both established in Paris, and by SARL Est Distribution
Biogram, established at Château-Salins (France), represented
by Catriona Hatton and Dirk Leermakers, of the Brussels Bar,            — breach of an essential procedural requirement, in that the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s                   Council failed to consult the Parliament with regard to the
Chambers, 5 Place du Théâtre.                                               derogation at issue in the present proceedings;


title: Case C-293/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 14 June 2010 — Gebhard Stark v D.A.S. Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 14 June 2010 — Gebhard Stark v D.A.S. Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG
   (Case C-293/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gebhard Stark

      Defendant: D.A.S. Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

      Question referred

   Is Article 4(1) of Directive 87/344/EEC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Paragraph 158k(2) of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) and a clause, based on that law, contained in the general conditions of insurance applied by a legal expenses insurer to the effect that it may be stipulated in the insurance contract that the insured person may select to represent him only persons professionally authorised to represent parties who have their chambers at the place of the court or administrative authority before which the proceedings at first instance are to be conducted?

      (1)  Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987, L 185, p. 77).


title: Case T-498/10: Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Mayer Naman v OHIM — Daniel & Mayer (David Mayer)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/51

         Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Mayer Naman v OHIM — Daniel & Mayer (David Mayer)
   (Case T-498/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/101
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: David Mayer Naman (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Sutti, lawyer, S. Cazzaniga, lawyer, and V. Fedele, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Daniel & Mayer Srl (Milan, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘David Mayer’ (registration application No 1518950), to designate inter alia goods in Classes 18 and 25

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Daniel & Mayer Srl

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Italian word mark ‘DANIEL & MAYER MADE IN ITALY’ (No 472351), to designate goods in Class 25, and the unregistered word mark ‘DANIEL & MAYER’, used in Italy in relation to the ‘manufacture and sale of garments and accessories’

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-347/04: Action brought on 17 August 2004 by Pascal Millot against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/57

         Action brought on 17 August 2004 by Pascal Millot against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-347/04)
   (2004/C 262/104)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 August 2004 by Pascal Millot, resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 11 September 2003 definitively setting the applicant's grading at the first step in Grade A6;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant argues that the contested decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, since it was taken without considering the option of allowing him additional seniority in his grade on account of his training and professional experience prior to his recruitment.


title: Case T-52/10 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09, Lebedef v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/48

         Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09, Lebedef v Commission
   (Case T-52/10 P)
   2010/C 113/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the order of the CST of 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09 between Giorgio Lebedef, resident at 4 Neie Wee, L-1670 Senningerberg, Luxembourg, official at the European Commission, assisted and represented by Frédéric Frabetti, 5 rue Jean Bertels, L-1230 Luxembourg, avocat à la Cour, at whose offices service is to be made, and the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant, seeking annulment of the decisions of 15.2.2008, 1.4.2008, 10.4.2008, 20.5.2008 and 14.7.2008 concerning the deduction of 39 days from the applicant’s annual leave entitlement for 2008;

               —

               Allow the applicant’s claims at first instance;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the matter back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Rule on costs and order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09 Lebedef v Commission, rejecting as manifestly devoid of any legal basis the action by which the applicant had sought annulment of a series of decisions concerning the deduction of 39 days from his annual leave for 2008.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant raises nine pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               failure to have regard to the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and to Article 1(2) of the Framework Agreement governing relations between the Commission and the trade unions and professional organisations;

               —

               incorrect interpretation and application of the concept of freedom of association;

               —

               facts which did not exist in 2008;

               —

               failure to have regard to the decision of the Commission of 28 April 2004 laying down provisions applicable to absence due to illness or accident;

               —

               incorrect interpretation and application of the concepts ‘participation in staff representation’, ‘secondment for the purposes of trade union matters’ and ‘absence on trade union matters’;

               —

               distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and of the applicant’s assertions and material inaccuracy of the findings of the CST with regard to the registration of ‘irregular absences’ in SysPer2;

               —

               misinterpretation of the applicant’s declarations and an error in law committed by the CST by interpreting the concept of ‘absence’ as it is defined in Articles 57, 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               an error in law committed by the CST in applying Article 60 of the Staff Regulations; and

               —

               a failure to state reasons with regard to various decisive points in the contested matter.


title: Case T-203/17: Order of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — GY v Commission

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/41

         Order of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — GY v Commission
   (Case T-203/17) (1)

   (2017/C 293/53)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-116/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/30

         Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-116/15)
   (2015/C 146/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               join the present case with the case registered under number C-14/15 for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure or of the judgment;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia (1);

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Parliament invokes two pleas in law in support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU.
   By its first plea in law, the Parliament claims that the Council used an incorrect legal basis in order to adopt Decision 2014/911/EU. In the context of that first plea in law, the Parliament puts forward two limbs of reasoning. The Parliament claims in particular that the Council should have found a legal basis for the contested decision amongst the provisions of the TFEU and that, in any event, the Council relied on an unlawful provision for the adoption of Decision 2014/911/EU. It used a derived legal basis, which, as such, is unlawful, in accordance with the Court’s case-law. Under that plea, the Parliament raises a plea of illegality relating to Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2).
   By its second plea in law, the Parliament complains that the Council used an incorrect decisional procedure in order to adopt that decision. The Parliament thus derives therefrom an infringement of the Treaties and an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 360, p. 28.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 210, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-381/14 and C-385/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank SA (C-381/14), and Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Mortgage contracts — ‘Floor’ clause — Examination of the clause with a view to its invalidation — Collective proceedings — Action for an injunction — Stay of an individual action with the same subject matter)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank SA (C-381/14), and Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14)
      (Joined Cases C-381/14 and C-385/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - ‘Floor’ clause - Examination of the clause with a view to its invalidation - Collective proceedings - Action for an injunction - Stay of an individual action with the same subject matter))
      (2016/C 211/11)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Jorge Sales Sinués (C-381/14), Youssouf Drame Ba (C-385/14)

         Defendants: Caixabank SA (C-381/14), Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a court, before which an individual action has been brought by a consumer seeking a declaration that a contractual term binding him to a seller or supplier is unfair, automatically to suspend such an action pending a final judgment concerning an ongoing collective action brought by a consumer association on the basis of Article 7(2) of Directive 93/13 seeking to prevent the continued use, in contracts of the same type, of terms similar to those at issue in that individual action, without the relevance of such a suspension from the point of view of the protection of the consumer who brought the individual action before the court being able to be taken into consideration and without that consumer being able to decide to dissociate himself from the collective action.

         (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case C-402/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 18(1) — Legal nature of a communication from OHIM informing a party that an opposition has been found to be admissible — Right to an effective legal remedy)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-402/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 18(1) - Legal nature of a communication from OHIM informing a party that an opposition has been found to be admissible - Right to an effective legal remedy)
   2012/C 379/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE) dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o. — Infringement of Article 80(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to an effective legal remedy

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE);

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o.;

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-459/02 (reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg)): Willy Gerekens and Association agricole pour la promotion de la commercialisation laitière Procola v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Milk — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — National legislation — Levy fixed retroactively — General principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-459/02 (reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg)): Willy Gerekens and Association agricole pour la promotion de la commercialisation laitière Procola v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Milk - Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector - National legislation - Levy fixed retroactively - General principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity)
   (2004/C 228/18)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-459/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Willy Gerekens and Association agricole pour la promotion de la commercialisation laitière Procola against the State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on the interpretation of the general principles of Community law of legal certainty and non-retroactivity in respect of national rules in the sphere of milk production quotas which were adopted in place of initial rules held by the Court of Justice to be discriminatory and which make it possible to penalise retroactively production in excess of those quotas after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), but in accordance with the national rules which have been replaced,— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting for the President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The general principles of Community law of legal certainty and non-retroactivity do not mean that, for the application of Community rules establishing production quotas of the type introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products and Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, a Member State is precluded from adopting, in place of initial rules held by the Court of Justice to be discriminatory, new rules applying retroactively to production in excess of the production quotas introduced following the entry into force of those regulations, but in accordance with the national rules which have been replaced.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.