title: Action brought on 23 November 1995 by Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (Oficemen) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-212/95)

text:
2 . 3 . 96          1 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 64/ 13
2 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                Instance of the European Communities on 23 November
                                                                      1995 by Fabricantes de Cemento de Espana ( Oficemen ),
3.   costs are reserved.                                              whose registered office is in Madrid, represented by Jaime
                                                                      Folguera Crespo and Edurne Navarro Varona, of the
                                                                      Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                     of 21 December 1995
                                                                      — annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
in Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of
             the Regions of the European Union
                                                                          Treaty, the decision of the Commission of February
                                                                           1994 whereby it gives definite effect to its proposal to
                            96/C 64/29 )                                  refuse to adopt protective measures against imports of
                                                                          cement from Turkey, Romania and Tunisia ,
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez, a member of the               — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, that,
temporary staff of the Economic and Social Committee of                    by not adopting within a reasonable period a decision
the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                            bringing to a conclusion anti-dumping proceedings, the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 Commission has infringed Article 7 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the basic
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis                Regulation, and
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, supported by Union
Syndicale-Bruxelles, established in Brussels, represented by          — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
Veronique Lebrun, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                 Oficemen in these proceedings.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, and Economic and Social
Committee of the European Communities ( Agent: Moises                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Bermejo Garde ), v. Committee of the Regions of the
European Union, represented by Dominique Lagasse, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            The applicant, an association whose object is, inter alia, to
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of        defend and promote the interests of the Spanish cement
the Commission of the European Communities, Wagner                    sector, challenges the decision of the defendant institution
Centre, Kirchberg — application for suspension of the                 not to proceed with the anti-dumping proceedings against
procedure in competition CdR A/03/95 , organized by the               imports into Spain of cement from Turkey, Tunisia and
Committee of the Regions, alternatively of the appointment            Romania , which was initiated by the complaint lodged by it
procedures anticipated in consequence of that competition             with the Commission . The contested decision is based on the
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order          finding that the protective measures sought were
on 21 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as               unnecessary since production and volume of sales remained
follows :                                                             stable, market share and the profitability of the sector
                                                                      remained significant and since costs had risen as a result of
 1 . the Union Syndicale-Bruxelles and the Economic and               excessive overcapacity .
      Social Committee are granted leave to intervene in
      support of the form of order sought by the applicant;           The applicant claims, first, that Article 4 of Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2423/88 was infringed as a result of the manifest
2 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                error of assessment and the breach of the principle that due
                                                                      care must be exercised and of the principle of good
 3 . the costs are reserved.                                          administration on which the decision to               shelve   the
                                                                      proceeding is based. The applicant points out in this regard
                                                                      that, contrary to the contention of the Commission, Spanish
                                                                      producers have suffered a significant loss of their share of
                                                                      the market and have been forced to reduce their prices as a
                                                                      result of the dumped imports . Moreover, the fall in profits in
Action brought on 23 November 1995 by Asociacion de                   the sector cannot be attributed to any alleged overcapacity,
 Fabricantes de Cemento de Espana ( Oficemen ) against the             but to the fact that it is impossible to increase prices in order
          Commission of the European Communities                      to reflect the increase in production costs .
                        ( Case T-2 12/95 )
                           ( 96/C 64/30 )                              Secondly, the decision which forms the subject-matter of the
                                                                       dispute infringes Article 9 of the basic Regulation, referred
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                        to above, inasmuch as the Commission is not competent to
                                                                       conclude anti-dumping proceedings without adopting
 An action against the Commission of the European                      protective measures, contrary to the position adopted by the
 Communities was brought before th£ Court of First                     Council .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 64/14           f EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2 . 3 . 96
Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 190 of          under Article 22 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89
the Treaty on the ground that the statement of reasons is             directly define and restrict the scope of the Commission's
inadequate .                                                          competence to investigate a concentration.
The applicant also relies on Article 175 of the Treaty against        As the Commission was, in the present case, requested by
the conduct of the Commission. The applicant explains in              the Netherlands Government to examine the concentration
this regard that the Commission has not defined its position          only in light of the TV advertising market, the Commission
as requested by the applicant, has not adopted any decision           could not expand the scope of the inquiry which it was
entailing the formal conclusion of the anti-dumping                   requested to carry out, so as to cover other markets .
proceeding and it has not taken within a reasonable period
any of the steps required by the basic Regulation in the event        Secondly, the Decision must be annulled because the
that a proposal to conclude anti-dumping proceedings                  Commission has infringed the applicants' rights of defence .
without imposing measures is rejected by the Council .                The Commission has seriously failed in its obligation to
                                                                      grant the applicants access to the file and to documents
                                                                      relevant for the conduct of their defence . This infringement
                                                                      of the rights of defence concerns not only the way in which
                                                                      the Commission granted 'access to the file ' but also the
                                                                      Commission 's refusal of access to essential documents
                                                                      obtained by the Commission after the date of the 'access to
Action brought on 4 December 1995 by Endemol                          the file '. There are serious indications that the Commission
Entertainment Holding BV, Veronica Omroep Organisatie,                thus withheld from the applicants documents which
Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion SA, NV                     supported their view and arguments .
Verenigd Bezit VNU and RTL4 SA against the Commission
                 of the European Communities                          Thirdly, the Decision must be annulled because the
                        ( Case T-221 /95 )                            Commission has infringed essential procedural rules and the
                           ( 96/C 64/31 )                             applicants' rights of defence by not submitting a report of
                                                                      the hearing to the Advisory Committee, the Commissioners
                                                                      and the applicants themselves .
                {Language of the case: English)
                                                                      Fourthly, the Decision must be annulled because the
An action against the Commission of the European                      Commission was wrong in concluding that Endemol 's
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     participation in HMG would strengthen an alleged
Instance of the European Communities on 4 December                    dominant position of Endemol in an alleged market of
1995 by Endemol Entertainment Holding BV, and Veronic                 independent Dutch TV production.
Omroep Organisatie, represented by Onno W. Brouwer and
Peter Wytinck, Stibbe Simont Monahan Duhot, and by                    Fifthly, HMG does not have a dominant position on the TV
Compagnie Luxembourgoise de Télédiffusion SA, NV                      broadcasting and TV advertising market . The applicants
Verenigd Bezit VNU and RLT4 SA, represented by Mark                   are, in particular, unable to agree with the Commission's
B. W. Biesheuvel and T. Martijn Snoep, De Brauw                       analysis of the position of the public broadcasters in the
Blackstone Westbroek, all with an address for service in              Netherlands . The Commission has limited itself to taking
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, Rue Goethe                   over and accepting on face value arguments and facts which
11 .                                                                  the Dutch public broadcasters have presented to the
                                                                      Commission, in their capacity as complainants ( SBS, a direct
                                                                      competitor of HMG, and the Dutch public broadcasters
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          have done their utmost to oppose and frustrate the creation
                                                                      of HMG).
— annul the Commission's Decision of 20 September 1995
     relating to a proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation
     ( EEC )    No 4064/89          ( IV/M.553-RTL/Veronica/-         Sixthly, the Decision must be annulled because the
     Endemol), and                                                    Commission has incorrectly held that Endemol has a
                                                                      dominant position. The Commission has defined the
                                                                      production market incorrectly . Furthermore, even in this
— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs                   narrowly defined market, Endemol does not have a
     pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the          dominant position . The Commission has incorrectly
     Court of First Instance .                                        calculated Endemol's market share and relied on other
                                                                      incorrect facts in assessing Endemol's position .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Seventhly, the concentration will in any event not lead to a
Firstly, the applicants claim that the Decision must be               significant change in effective competition on the
annulled on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of power            production market.
and infringement of Article 22 ( 3 ) of Regulation 4064/89
and Article 3b of the EC Treaty. The applicants submit that
the text and the content of a request from a Member State


title: Case C-295/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato by order of 16 July 2001 in the case of Fontaneto Industria Alimentare S.r.l. v A.S.L. No 21 — Dipartimento di Prevenzione Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione, Casale Monferrato (AL)

text:
13.10.2001            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                     expressly authorised, and also in with regard to compliance
Cassation (Chambre commerciale, financière et écono-                  with the principle of equal treatment? (1)’
mique) by judgment of that court of 17 July 2001 in the
case of Receveur Principal des Douanes Françaises de
Villepinte against Société Tang Frères, subrogated to the             (1) OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15.
                   rights of Derruder et Cie
                        (Case C-290/01)
                       (2001/C 289/24)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di pace
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation             di Casale Monferrato by order of 16 July 2001 in the case
(Court of Cassation), Chambre commerciale, financière et              of Fontaneto Industria Alimentare S.r.l. v A.S.L. No 21
économique (Commercial, Financial and Economic Division)              — Dipartimento di Prevenzione Servizio Igiene Alimenti
of 17 July 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on                      e Nutrizione, Casale Monferrato (AL)
23 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Receveur
Principal des Douanes Françaises de Villepinte against Société                                (Case C-295/01)
Tang Frères, subrogated to the rights of Derruder et Cie.
The Cour de Cassation (Chambre commerciale, financière et
économique) asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary                                   (2001/C 289/26)
ruling on the following question:
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
‘On a proper construction of Article 70(1) of the Community           European Communities by order of 16 July 2001 by the
Customs Code, where a representative of the declarant is              Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato (Magistrate’s Court,
present when the customs authorities takes a sample of the            Casale Monferrato) which was received at the Court Registry
goods and he does not challenge the representativeness of that        on 25 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
sample, is the declarant no longer entitled to challenge the          Fontaneto Industria Alimentare S.r.l. A.S.L. No 21 — Diparti-
representativeness of that sample before the Tribunal hearing         mento di Prevenzione Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione,
the application for payment of the additional import levies           Casale Monferrato (AL), on the following questions:
considered by the Customs authorities to be due?’
                                                                      1.   On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1)(5) of Directive
                                                                           2000/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                           Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the
                                                                           laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                           presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, with reference
                                                                           to Article 1 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (2) of 25 July
                                                                           1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
                                                                           and administrative provisions of the Member States
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                     concerning liability for defective products, is the indi-
Stato by order of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case                   cation on the label of the period within which the
of Infostrada S.p.A. against Ministero del Tesoro, del                     foodstuff must be consumed solely a matter for the
        Bilancio e della Programmazione economica                          producer himself under his sole responsibility?
                        (Case C-293/01)                               2.   If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does
                                                                           Community law prohibit Member States from unilaterally
                                                                           imposing on foodstuff producers the obligation to indi-
                       (2001/C 289/25)                                     cate on the label an expiry date for a product for which
                                                                           Community law makes no provision?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato               3.   If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, can the
(Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the Court                  national court disapply the provisions of national law
Registry on 23 July 2001, in the case of Infostrada S.p.A.                 which conflict with Community legislation on the points
against Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programma-              referred to in the previous questions?
zione economica on the following question:
                                                                      (1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.
‘Does Directive 97/13/EC permit the Member States to require          (2) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29.
solely those undertakings holding a licence or authorisation to
carry on telecommunications activities to make compulsory
financial payments, other than and in addition to those


title: Case C-77/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corta Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Ugo Cifone v Giudice delle indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Trani

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corta Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Ugo Cifone v Giudice delle indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Trani
   (Case C-77/10)
   2010/C 100/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corta Suprema di Cassazione

      Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ugo Cifone

      Question referred

   The Court of Justice is requested to interpret Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Union with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences: (a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; (b) in fact ensure the maintenance of commercial positions acquired following a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence; (c) provide cases in which the licence may lapse with forfeiture of very large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-300/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Honeywell Aerospace GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Community transit — Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities — Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-300/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Honeywell Aerospace GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (1)

   (Community transit - Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities - Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)
   (2005/C 57/17)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-300/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany), made by decision of 25 April 2003, received at the Court on 11 July 2003, in the proceedings between Honeywell Aerospace GmbH and Hauptzollamt Gießen – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and K. Schiemann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:
   Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code in conjunction with Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt has been incurred where a consignment placed under the external Community transit procedure has not been presented at the customs office of destination, but that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs may take steps to recover the debt only if it has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which to furnish the proof requested and such proof has not been provided within that period.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.


title: Case T-185/07: Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM — Zafra Marroquineros (CK CREACIONES KENNYA)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/34

         Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM — Zafra Marroquineros (CK CREACIONES KENNYA)
   (Case T-185/07)
   (2007/C 170/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (Delaware, United States) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, M.I. Lehmann Novo and A. Hernández Lehmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zafra Marroquineros, S.L.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the contested decision of 29 March 2007 in Case R 314/2006-2;

               —

               rejection of Community word mark No 3 386 604 CK CREACIONES KENNYA;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the intervener.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Zafra Marroquineros, S.L.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CK CREACIONES KENNYA’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (application No 3.386.604).

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Primarily the Community figurative mark ‘CK Calvin Klein’ (mark No 66.712) for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24-27, 35 and 42 and the national marks ‘CK’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there exists a likelihood of confusion between the marks in dispute and the mark ‘CK’ is well known.

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


title: Case T-431/04 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2007 — Italy v Commission (Interim relief — Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 — Common organisation of the market in wine — System for the use of names of vine varieties and their synonyms — Use limited in time — Application devoid of purpose)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/38

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-431/04 R)
   (Interim relief - Application for interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 - Common organisation of the market in wine - System for the use of names of vine varieties and their synonyms - Use limited in time - Application devoid of purpose)
   (2007/C 199/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Fiorilli, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: E. Righini and L. Visaggio, and subsequently by F. Jimeno Fernández and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented initially by: P. Gottfried, and subsequently by R. Somssich and J. Stadler, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for interim measures seeking, principally, a stay of execution until delivery of the judgment by the Court in Joined Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07 of the provision limiting to 31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘tocai friulano’, which name appears in the form of an explanatory note to Point 103 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11), and, as a subsidiary plea, a stay of execution of that provision within the territory of the Italian Republic until delivery of the judgment by the Court in Joined Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07, together with a prohibition of exports of production in the Community and without prejudice to the marketing of Hungarian-produced wine bearing the name ‘tokaj’ or homonyms thereof accepted for marketing in Italy and in the Community.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case F-80/13: Action brought on 21 August 2013 — ZZ v ESMA

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/51

         Action brought on 21 August 2013 — ZZ v ESMA
   (Case F-80/13)
   2013/C 325/83
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: O. Kress and S. Bassis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Firstly, annulment of the decision to extend the applicant’s probation period and of the subsequent decision to dismiss him and, secondly, application for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision to extend the probation period;

               —

               Annul the decision to dismiss the applicant;

               —

               Order ESMA to pay him, as compensation for the harm suffered, damages provisionally assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 373 414 for the material harm and EUR 50 000 for the non-pecuniary harm;

               —

               Order ESMA to pay the costs.


title: Case C-474/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
10.1.2004             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 7/25
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                 On the basis of the Council Regulation 2913/92 (‘the Customs
                                                                        Code’), in particular Articles 29, 32 and 33 thereof, and the
                                                                        case law of the Court, where, at the time of customs clearance,
                                                                        an importer inadvertently declares as the price paid or payable
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         for the goods an amount inclusive of buying commission and
                                                                        inadvertently fails to show the buying commission separately
                                                                        on the import declaration from the price actually paid or
1. Breach of essential procedural requirements as a result of
                                                                        payable but, after the goods have been released into free
infringement of the Council’s language rules: the Spanish
                                                                        circulation, shows to the satisfaction of the Customs authorities
delegation did not receive an invitation in Spanish to the
                                                                        that the declared price paid or payable for the goods included
meeting of the Management Committee for Fisheries and
                                                                        bona fide buying commission, which could have been properly
Aquaculture at which the proposed regulation was discussed.
                                                                        deducted at importation, and makes a claim for repayment of
Furthermore, during that meeting the Commission put forward
                                                                        the duty paid on the buying commission within three years of
a substantive amendment to its proposal but only in English.
                                                                        the date on which amount of customs duty was communicated:
2. Breach of the hierarchy of norms: Article 7(1) of                    1.     Could the bona fide buying commission be dutiable as
Regulation No 1438/2003 infringes the provisions of:                           part of the price actually paid or payable for the goods
                                                                               under Article 29 of the Customs Code?
—     Article 13 of Regulation No 2371/2002 which does not
      require the Member State to guarantee that the tonnage
      capacity does not exceed certain limits; and                      2.     If the answer to question 1 is negative, could the bona
                                                                               fide buying commission be deductible from the declared
—     Article 11 of Regulation No 2371/2002 which requires                     transaction value bearing in mind the provisions of
      that, when establishing the balance of entries and exits                 Articles 32.3 and 33 of the Customs Code?
      the corresponding capacity of the fleet is not to be taken
      into account.
                                                                        3.     In such circumstances are the customs authorities obliged
                                                                               under the Customs Code, and in particular Article 78.3
3. Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations: the                     thereof, to accept the amendment to the price paid or
retrospective nature of the provision could be detrimental to                  payable for the imported goods and thereby reduced
the interested of the persons concerned.                                       customs value?
4. Arbitrariness: the provision lays down as the period for             4.     Is the importer therefore entitled under the Customs
exits the range of 2000 to 2002 for no technical reason                        Code, and in particular Article 236 thereof, to a refund
whatever.                                                                      of the duty paid on the buying commission?
(1) OJ L 204 of 13.08.2003, p. 21.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that                 Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-
court dated 29 October 2003, in the case of Overland                    mission of the European Communities against the
Footwear Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and                                               Hellenic Republic
                             Excise
                        (Case C-468/03)                                                          (Case C-474/03)
                         (2004/C 7/42)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/43)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 29 October 2003,
which was received at the Court Registry on 6 November                  An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Overland                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Nov-
Footwear Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on                 ember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
the following questions:                                                ties, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/26                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.1.2004
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
      notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and                The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-         expired on 8 August 2002.
      tive 2000/9/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35.
      installations designed to carry persons, the Hellenic
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Com-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg
The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national                                  (Case C-481/03)
law expired on 3 May 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 7/45)
(1 ) OJ L 106, 3.5.2000, p. 21.
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 19 November 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as
                                                                        Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 18 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                     Duchy of Luxembourg                                the Court should:
                                                                        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-479/03)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of
                           (2004/C 7/44)                                      the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
                                                                              Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Com-
                                                                              munity’s railways (1) and Directive 2001/13/EC of the
                                                                              European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
                                                                              2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                           licensing of railway undertakings (2) and, in any event, by
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand
ties on 18 November 2003 by the Commission of the                             Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
European Communities, represented by M. Patakia, acting as                    under those directives;
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and principal arguments
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of            The period prescribed for the transposition of those directives
      the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment             expired on 15 March 2003.
      in commercial transactions (1) and, in any event, by failing
      to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that        (1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1.
      directive;                                                        (2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26.
2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case C-71/13 P: Order of the Court of 15 July 2014 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/27

         Order of the Court of 15 July 2014 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-71/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic))
   2014/C 315/41
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and E.Leftheriotou)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. Tserepa-Lacomb and A.Markoulli, Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6 April 2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2001 in Case C-201/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Deutsche Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Satellite television receivers)

text:
14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 200/5
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                          (Second Chamber)
                           of 29 March 2001                                                            of 5 April 2001
in Case C-404/99: Commission of the European Communi-                       in Case C-201/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       ties v French Republic (1)                           the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Deutsche Nichimen GmbH
                                                                                v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
VAT Directive — Taxable amount — Exclusion — Service                        (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifi-
                                 charges)                                   cation in the Combined Nomenclature — Satellite television
                                                                                receivers)
                            (2001/C 200/07)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/08)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-404/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: E. Traversa, assisted by N. Coutrelis) v French Republic            In Case C-201/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a               EC from the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Düsseldorf (Ger-
declaration that, by authorising, under certain conditions, the             many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
exclusion from the taxable amount for the purposes of value                 before that court between Deutsche Nichimen GmbH and
added tax of the ‘service charges’ claimed by certain taxable               Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf — on the interpretation of the
persons, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff as
under Articles 2(1) and 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive            set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                      the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  amended by the Annexes to Commission Regulation (EEC)
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                     No 2886/89 of 2 August 1989 (OJ 1989 L 252, p. 1),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of 31 July 1990
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and                        (OJ 1990 L 247, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EEC)
L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                  No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 250, p. 1) — the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President
on 29 March 2001, in which it:                                              of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colnerie,
                                                                            Judges; F.G. Jacobs. Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
1.    Declares that, by authorising, under certain conditions, the          Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 April
      exclusion from the taxable amount for the purposes of value           2001, in which it has ruled:
      added tax of the compulsory price supplements claimed by
      certain taxable persons by way of remuneration for the service        The Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff as set
      provided (‘service charges’), the French Republic has failed to       out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July
      fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1) and 11A(1)(a) of the       1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
      Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              Customs Tariff, as amended by the Annexes to Commission
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to            Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 of 2 August 1989, Commission
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform            Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of 31 July 1990 and Commission
      basis of assessment;                                                  Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, must be interpreted
                                                                            as meaning that between 1990 and 1992 satellite television receivers
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                          were to be classified under tariff heading 8528.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


title: Case T-249/12: Action brought on 5 June 2012 — Vestel Iberia v Commission

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/14

         Action brought on 5 June 2012 — Vestel Iberia v Commission
   (Case T-249/12)
   2012/C 235/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vestel Iberia, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision COM(2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/08), notified to the applicant on 12 April 2012;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that import duties were entered in the account contrary to Article 220(2)(b) Community Customs Code (CCC) (1), since the defendant erroneously considered that anti-dumping regulations adopted against imports from third countries are automatically applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union, and as a result, the defendant erroneously failed to inform traders that the AD Regulation concerned was also applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union. Alternatively, the Turkish authorities committed an error when they confirmed that the anti-dumping duties imposed on goods from third countries were not applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union. Furthermore, the Spanish customs authorities also committed an error since they assumed that goods accompanied by an A.TR certificate could not be subject to any additional duties or trade protection measures, and failed to inform economic operator that their imports from Turkey could be subject to trade measures, even if such goods were in free circulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the error committed by the competent customs authorities could not have been reasonably detected by the person liable for payment, having acted in good faith and having complied with all the provisions laid down by legislation in force as regards the customs declaration.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the applicant finds itself in a special situation of Article 239 CCC, and that no deception or obvious negligence can be attributed to him pursuant to Article 239 CCC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 27 January 2005 in Case C-59/04 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 27 January 2005
   in Case C-59/04 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 82/09)
   Language of the Case: French
   In Case C-59/04, concerning an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 11 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) against the French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and A. Bodard-Hermant), the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg-Barthelet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General, A. Tizzano; Registrar, R. Grass, gave a judgment on 27 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 5(1) and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004


title: Case T-375/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/30

         Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)
   (Case T-375/16)
   (2016/C 326/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sabre GLBL, Inc. (Southlake, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘INSTASITE’ — Application for registration No 13 882 162

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 in Case R 1742/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

   Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-546/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard v Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) and (2) — Refusal to grant availability pay to civil servants who have reached the age of 65 and are entitled to a pension)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard v Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet
   (Case C-546/11) (1)

   (Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) and (2) - Refusal to grant availability pay to civil servants who have reached the age of 65 and are entitled to a pension)
   2013/C 344/21
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard

      Defendant: Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet

      Interveners: Centralorganisationernes Fællesudvalg (CFU), Kommunale Tjenestemænd og Overenskomstansatte (KTO), Personalestyrelsen, Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), Danske Regioner

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Art. 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Fixing of age limits for access or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits under occupational social security schemes — Discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation providing, in the event that a worker’s post ceases to exist, for compensation up to the amount of his salary for three years or until he has reached retirement age — Retirement pension paid to a worker who has reached the age of 65 whose post has ceased to exist, irrespective of his entitlement to continue working after the age of 65

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as being applicable only to retirement or invalidity benefits under an occupational social security scheme.

               2.

               Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which a civil servant who has reached the age at which he is able to receive a retirement pension is denied, solely for that reason, entitlement to availability pay intended for civil servants dismissed on grounds of redundancy.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case C-293/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2013 in Case T-587/08: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. v European Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/18

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2013 in Case T-587/08: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. v European Commission
   (Case C-293/13 P)
   2013/C 252/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. (represented by: B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt, L. Suhr, advocate, O. Van Ermengem, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 in Case T-587/08;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 15 October 2008 (C(2008) 5955 final) in Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas so far as it pertains to the appellant; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First, the appellant submits that the Commission and the General Court misapplied Article 81(1) EC (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) by holding Del Monte liable for the infringement. The parental liability test requires that the subsidiary is unable to make independent decisions as to its market conduct. This means that parental liability can only be imposed in cases where a subsidiary follows the parent’s instructions in all material aspects, The Commission and the General Court held Del Monte liable for Weichert’s conduct although they acknowledged that ‘Weichert did not always follow Del Montes’s instructions’ and that ‘Weichert’s pricing decisions may not have met Del Monte’s expectations’. In addition, neither the Decision nor the Judgment shows that Weichert actually followed any Del Monte instructions. The applicant adds that the General Court’s assessment is limited to a number of factors that allegedly gave Del Monte some degree of influence, but it does not apply the test set out in the case law to assess what made this influence ‘decisive’.
   By way of a subsidiary ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted some of the evidence, in particular with regard to its assessment of the partnership agreement of Weichert and statements from other importers.
   The appellant further submits that, by rejecting individual elements merely on the basis that such evidence did not establish the absence of decisive influence, the General Court effectively reversed the burden of proof. This amounted to a violation of Article 48 Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (presumption of innocence), of Article 6(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights and of the in dubio pro reo principle.
   The appellant finally submits that by considering Dole, Chiquita and Weichert as participating in a single and continuous infringement, despite that fact that Weichert was not aware of any communications between Chiquita and Dole, the General Court misapplied Article 81(1) EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty
   OJ L 1, p. 1


title: Case C-63/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rovereto (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against John Austine

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rovereto (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against John Austine
   (Case C-63/11)
   2011/C 120/09
   Language of the case: italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Rovereto

      Party to the main proceedings

   John Austine

      Question referred

   In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, are Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing that an illegally staying third country national who fails to cooperate in the administrative return procedure is to be subject to measures involving deprivation of liberty on the basis of measures, other than detention measures, as defined under national law, in the absence of the requirements and safeguards laid down in Articles 15 and 16, on grounds of failure to comply with a removal order issued by the competent administrative authorities in accordance with Article 8(3) of the directive?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-505/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2006 — Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova v Euricom SpA

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2006 — Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova v Euricom SpA
   (Case C-505/06)
   (2007/C 42/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

      Defendant: Euricom SpA
   Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 216 of the Community Customs Code, does that provision apply exclusively to products obtained under the inward processing procedure which incorporate non-Community goods, or does it form the basis for a customs debt quite separate from other such debts, justified by the need to avoid granting double relief from customs duty?

               2.

               In the context of an operation under the inward processing arrangements, carried out in accordance with the prior export equivalence procedure (EX-IM), do Articles 115(1) and 115(3) of the Community Customs Code, together with the related implementing rules laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1), govern in any case the question whether the products imported to make up for the products previously exported as originating in Italy are to be regarded for customs purposes as Community goods, and the question whether they benefit accordingly from an exemption from import duties, or do those provisions not apply in cases where that operation — in respect of the products at issue, as described in the preamble — concerns prior exports to countries with which the European Community has entered into related Agreements?

               3.

               In the present case, does the fact that Article [115](3), referred to above, provides that the imported replacement goods are to acquire the customs status of the prior-exported Community goods have any effect on the operation in practice, in particular, on the Community origins of the prior-exported Italian rice? If so, what is the relationship between the customs regime of inward processing arrangements and the rules of origin laid down in the Community Customs Code and the Agreements with the CEECs?

               4.

               In so far as Article 15(2) of the Agreements between the European Community and the CEECs establishes that the prohibition on refunds of customs duties relating to non-Community raw materials used in the manufacture of products exported with a EUR 1 certificate of origin (issued by a Community customs authority) does not apply if those products are instead retained for home use, must that provision be interpreted in such a way as to render Article 216 of the Community Customs Code redundant?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Call for applications — Director-General (Grades AD15 — AD16) of Translation at the Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               12.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CA 307/1

         CALL FOR APPLICATIONS
   Director-General (Grades AD15 — AD16) of Translation at the Court of Justice of the European Union
   (2010/C 307 A/01)

      The post of Director-General (Grades AD15 — AD16) of Translation at the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg is vacant. This post will be filled by the application of Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

   DUTIES AND REQUIREMENTS
   Acting under the authority of the Registrar, the Director-General of Translation is responsible for the Directorate-General for Translation, which provides legal translation services for the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Directorate-General for Translation helps to ensure compliance with the language arrangements of the three courts constituting the institution, in relation to both the conduct of proceedings and the publication of case-law. The Directorate-General has approximately 900 members of staff, including more than 600 lawyer-linguists (1), and uses the services of a similar number of freelance translators.
   The Director-General of Translation must have the abilities necessary to run a major administrative service that is required to adapt to developments in the court system and to evolve in the context of future enlargements of the European Union. S/he will have to demonstrate that s/he is highly organised, and be capable of making structural adjustments to the Directorate-General in the face of new challenges. S/he will also be required to have good interpersonal skills, and the ability to convince and motivate his/her staff. S/he will be responsible for leading and coordinating the activities of the heads of the 22 language units and 4 functional units of the Directorate-General, and for cooperating effectively with the Court's other directors-general and heads of service.
   Furthermore, in order to cope with an ever-increasing workload which cannot be absorbed by staff increases alone, every effort must be made to improve further the high levels of productivity already achieved by the service. Pursuit of that objective entails, in particular, continuing improvement in organisation and working methods, and the widespread use of new technologies. The Director-General of Translation will have to demonstrate a strong interest in information technology issues and in the use of new technologies.
   In addition, management of the service must reflect a permanent concern to tailor the Directorate-General's methods to the requirements of the Court's work and to maintain the high quality of translations.
   The post holder will, therefore, be required to have detailed knowledge and professional experience of managing a specialist translation service and be capable of leading the work of that service having regard to the organisation and operation of the Court.
   Given the context in which s/he will be working, the Director-General of Translation will be required to have completed legal studies attested by a university-level qualification and to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of one official language of the European Union and a very good knowledge of two other official languages of the Union. In the interests of the service, s/he will be required to have a very good knowledge of French and a good knowledge of English.
   SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS
   Applications for this post must be sent for the attention of the Registrar of the Court of Justice by email only to DG.DGT@curia.europa.eu and must be received no later than 4 December 2010. Applications must be accompanied by a detailed curriculum vitae and any other relevant documents. Candidates must also attach to their application a statement of no more than five pages setting out their proposals for the service and indicating what, in their view, qualifies them for the post.
   Luxembourg, 26 October 2010

      (1)  Further information about the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Directorate-General for Translation is available on the Court's website (www.curia.europa.eu).


title: Case T-278/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by European External Action Service (EEAS) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/72

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by European External Action Service (EEAS) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14
   (Case T-278/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/87)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: KL (Brussels, Belgium)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14;

               —

               uphold the claims it submitted at first instance;

               —

               order the defendant to the appeal to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law, some of which concern the staff appraisal system and others of which concern the promotion system.

               —

               The appraisal system

                           1.

                           First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof, breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and breach of the appellant’s rights of the defence.

                           2.

                           Second plea in law, alleging breach of the limits of judicial review. The appellant submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal has exceeded the limits of its power of judicial review several times, and appears to be seeking to oblige it to adopt a particular system of staff appraisal.

                           3.

                           Third plea in law, alleging the Tribunal erred in law in finding that an appraisal system not based on marks lacks objectivity, and infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

               —

               The promotion system

                           4.

                           Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and of the appellant’s rights of the defence.

                           5.

                           Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof.

                           6.

                           Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the appellant had infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.


title: Case C-536/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Tele2 (Netherlands) BV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), Other party: European Directory Assistance NV

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Tele2 (Netherlands) BV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), Other party: European Directory Assistance NV
   (Case C-536/15)
   (2016/C 027/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Tele2 (Netherlands) BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV

      Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

      Other party: European Directory Assistance NV

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that requests should be understood to include a request from a company established in another Member State, which requests information for the purposes of the provision of publicly available telephone directory enquiry services and directories which are provided in that Member State and/or in other Member States?

               2)

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: may a provider who makes telephone numbers available, and who is obliged under national legislation to request a subscriber’s consent prior to inclusion in standard telephone directories and standard directory enquiry services, differentiate in the request for consent on the basis of the non-discrimination principle according to the Member State in which the company requesting the information as referred to in Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC provides the telephone directory and directory enquiry service?

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).


title: Action brought on 30 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-344/95)

text:
No C 333/ 12            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 12 . 95
     person a VAT credit in relation to a specific period or                   of Member States but, instead, two successive
     periods during which that credit arose or to carry it over                registration certificates, and by demanding payment
     to a subsequent tax period, and instead withholding it                    for those certificates,
     by means of the Belgian withholding procedure, which
     has the effect of a preventive attachment within the                  — by issuing to employed persons and to seasonal
     meaning of Article 1445 of the Belgian Judicial Code, as                  workers whose anticipated period of work does not
     long as no definitive entitlement has arisen in that regard               exceed three months a document relating to their
     and only up to the amount of the demand relating to that                  residence, and by demanding payment for that
     tax period or earlier periods, where the demand is                        document,
     disputed by the taxable person ?
                                                                      2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
3 . Is Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Directive applicable, given that,
     according to the Belgian State , such withholding is a           Pleas in law and main arguments:
     debt-recovery procedure ?
                                                                      — ( As regards the situation of persons seeking work )
    — If so, is Article 27 of the Directive applicable if such
         withholding were to form part of the conditions                  As Community law now stands, and in accordance with
         (modalites)?                                                     the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 February 1991
                                                                          in Case C-292/89 , nationals of Member States have the
    — If not, is Article 27 applicable, on the assumption                 right to stay in the territory of other Member States in
         that such withholding is a debt-recovery                         order to seek employment there; a Member State may
         procedure ?                                                      limit that right of residence by making it subject to a
                                                                          ' reasonable time-limit', the expiry of which does not
4 . If Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Directive is applicable to the             automatically bring that right to an end, however,
    Belgian withholding procedure, does that procedure                    provided that the person concerned is continuing to seek
    infringe the principle of proportionality as defined by               employment and has genuine chances of being engaged.
    the Court of Justice ?                                                The Belgian rules in force ( 2 ) require such persons
                                                                          seeking employment to leave the territory after a period
(') OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                           of three months and, since no provision is made for the
                                                                          production by the person concerned to produce evidence
                                                                          that he is continuing to seek employment and has
                                                                          genuine chances of being engaged, those rules are
                                                                          contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                     — ( As regards the system of registration certificates )
Action brought on 30 October 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        Although Article 4 of Directive 68/360/EEC provides
                              Belgium                                     that the Member State must issue a residence permit, the
                         Case C-344/95 )                                  residence of workers in Belgium is covered initially , over
                                                                          a period of six months, by two registration certificates .
                          ( 95/C 333/24 )
                                                                          The issue of a provisional residence document
                                                                          constitutes an additional difficulty over and above the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                      difficulties facing a migrant worker when he instals
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                himself in another Member State . The Belgian rules in
30 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                         question thus constitute a genuine obstacle to the free
Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, acting as                  movement of workers, and are therefore contrary, in
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   principle, to Article 48 of the EC Treaty.
office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre 254,
                                                                          The Commission does not contend that the residence
Kirchberg.
                                                                          permit has to be issued immediately, that is to say, on
                                                                          the same day as the submission of an application
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              accompanied by the supporting documentation, but
                                                                          maintains that the practical effect of Article 4 requires
1 . declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil              that such an application be dealt with in any event within
    its obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty and                 a short period of time, and that a period of three months
     Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on
    the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                          ( and a fortiori six months ) for dealing with a simple
                                                                          administrative formality is excessive .
    within the Community for workers of Member States
    and their families ( ! )                                              Article 9 ( 1 ) of Directive 68/360/EEC provides that
                                                                          residence permits are to be issued and renewed free of
    — by requiring nationals of other Member States who                   charge or on payment of an amount not exceeding the
         seek employment in Belgium to leave the territory                dues and taxes charged for the issue of identity cards to
         after a period of three months,                                  nationals . The fact that a payment may be demanded by
                                                                          Belgian communes on the issue of the registration
    — by issuing to workers employed for a period of at                   certificate can hardly be said to afford equality of
         least one year, during the first six months of their             treatment between Belgians and nationals of other
         residence, not a residence permit for nationals                  Member States .
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 12 . 95             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 333/ 13
— ( As regards workers residing for less than three                          a simple attestation of the fact that the worker
      months )                                                               concerned has reported his presence on Belgian territory
      Although Article 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) and ( c ) of Directive                  (Article 8 ( 2 ) of Directive 68/360/EEC ).
      68/360/EEC provides that Member States are, without
                                                                      (') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 485 .
      issuing a residence permit, to recognize the right of           ( 2 ) Law of 15 December 1980 on access to the territory, residence,
      residence , the Belgian legislation in force requires the             establishment and the departure of aliens ( as amended by the
      persons concerned to apply for a document ( the issue of              Law of 6 May 1993 ); Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 on access
      which may, depending on the commune involved, give                    to the territory, residence , establishment and the departure of
      rise to the payment of a charge ) amounting to more than              aliens ( as amended several times ).
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               3 . orders the Council to pay the costs;
                       of 19 October 1995
in Case T-194/94 : John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers                4 . orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the
            Ltd v. Council of the European Union ( 1 )                       Netherlands and the European Parliament to bear their
                                                                             own costs .
(Transparency — Access to information — Council
Decision refusing access to documents relating to its
deliberations — Interpretation of Article 4 (2) of Decision           (•) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
                             93/731/EC)
                           ( 95/C 333/25 )
                  (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-194/94 : John Carvel, residing in Brussels, and              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Guardian Newspapers Ltd, whose registered office is in                                          of 26 October 1995
Manchester, United Kingdom, represented by Onno
                                                                      in Case T-l 85 /94 : Geotronics SA v. Commission of the
W. Brouwer and Frederic P. Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
assisted by Deirdre Curtin, of the University of Utrecht, with                              European Communities ( L )
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                (Phare programme — Restricted invitation to tender —
Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by Kingdom of                   Action for annulment — Admissibility — EEA Agree
Denmark, ( Agent: Peter Biering ), Kingdom of the                                         ment — Action for damages)
Netherlands ( Agents : A. Bos and J. W. de Zwaan ) and                                              ( 95/C 333/26 )
European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio Garzon Clariana
and Francois Vainker ) against Council of the European
Union ( Agents : Jill Aussant and Giorgio Maganza ) —                                    (Language of the case: English)
application for annulment of decisions of the Council
adopted pursuant to Council Decision 93/731 /EC of
20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents                In Case T-l 85/94 : Geotronics SA, a company with its
( OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43 ) — the Court of First Instance                registered office at Lognes ( France ), represented by Tommy
 ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of                Pettersson, of the Swedish Bar, with an address for service in
B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio,              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,
H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,                   8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 October 1995 , in which               European Communities ( Agents : Karen Banks and, at the
 it :                                                                  hearing, John Forman ) — application for, first, the
                                                                       annulment of the Commission 's decision of 10 March 1994
                                                                       rejecting the applicant's tender for the supply of electronic
 I . annuls the implied decision of the Council refusing the           tacheometers under the Phare Programme, and, second,
       applicants access to the preparatory reports, the               compensation under Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty
       minutes, attendance and voting records of the Justice           for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered
       Council of 29 and 30 November 1993 and the decision             as a result of the contested decision — the Court of First
       contained in the letter of the Council of 17 May 1994           Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts
       refusing access to the minutes of the Agriculture Council       ( President of the Chamber ), R. Schintgen and
       of 24 and 25 January 1 994;                                     R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for
                                                                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 1995 in
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                       which it:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 27 February 2002 in Case T-219/00: Ellos AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — ELLOS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 144/42               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        20 February 2002                                                             27 February 2002
in Case T-170/00: Förde-Reederei GmbH v Council of                          in Case T-219/00: Ellos AB v Office for Harmonisation in
the European Union and Commission of the European                           the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                         Communities (1)
                                                                            (Community trade mark — ELLOS — Absolute ground for
(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Directive                     refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject                                             (EC) No 40/94)
to excise duty — Damage caused by transitional tax exemp-
tion arrangements for products bought by travellers during
          sea-crossings between two Member States)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/89)
                         (2002/C 144/88)                                                       (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-219/00, Ellos AB, established in Borås (Sweden),
                                                                            represented by G. Bergqvist, lawyer, v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agents: F. López de Rego and
                                                                            J. F. Crespo Carrillo): Action brought against the decision of
In Case T-170/00, Förde-Reederei GmbH, established in Flens-                the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
burg (Germany), represented by U. Schrömbges and L. Harings,                the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 June
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council               2000 (Case R 385/1999-1), refusing registration of the term
of the European Union (Agents: A.-M. Colaert and J.-P. Hix)                 ELLOS as a Community trade mark, Court of First Instance
and Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                         (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President,
E. Traversa, R. Lyal and K. Gross): Application seeking                     V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen,
compensation for damage allegedly suffered following the                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
expiry of the transitional tax exemption arrangements pro-                  27 February 2002, in which it:
vided by Article 28 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and
monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), Court of                  1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura                         for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges;                           Designs) of 15 June 2000 (Case R 385/1999-1) in so far as
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                     it concerns services falling within Class 35 of the Nice
judgment on 20 February 2002, in which it:                                        Agreement and corresponding to the following description:
                                                                                ‘customer services for mail-order sales’;
1.    Dismisses the application;                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay all the costs.                            3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 January 2004 in Case T-202/02 Makedoniko Metro and Michaniki AE against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 January 2004
   in Case T-202/02 Makedoniko Metro and Michaniki AE against the Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Public works contracts - Failure to initiate the Treaty infringement procedure - Article 3 of Directive 89/665/EEC - Action for damages - Inadmissible)
   (2004/C 94/118)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case T-202/02: Makedoniko Metro, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), and Michaniki AE, established in Marousi, Attica (Greece), represented by C. Gkonis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Konstantinidis) — application for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants consequent upon the decision of the Commission to take no further action on their complaint No 97/4188/P lodged on 23 January 1997 concerning the award by the Greek State of a public works contract relating to studies for, and the construction, self-financing and operation of, the Thessaloniki Metro — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M.Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ No C 274, 9.11.2002.