title: Case T-246/04: Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/31

         Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-246/04)
   (2004/C 217/56)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by Mr David O'Sullivan, Secretary General, on 11 September 2003 in his capacity as appeal assessor and adversely affecting the applicant in that it confirms and definitively approves the applicant's Career Development Report for the period 1 July 2001 to 21 December 2002;

               —

               annul that report;

               —

               annul the decision expressly the applicant's complaint, lodged in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 9 December 2003 and registered as No R/711/03 and seeking annulment of the contested decision;

               —

               award the applicant damages for non-material harm and for adversely affecting his career, owing to the substantial irregularities and also to the significant delay in drawing up that report, damages assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 4 000, subject to such amount being increased or reduced in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the second paragraph of Article 25 and of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and also of the general implementing provisions relating to the latter article adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002. He also claims that there has been a breach of the rights of defence, of the principle of sound administration, of the duty to have regard for his welfare and of the principle of equal treatment, and also a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case C-687/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 — Validity — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(7)(a) — Normal value — Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country — Selection of the appropriate third country — Duty of care — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Sampling)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg
   (Case C-687/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(a) - Normal value - Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country - Selection of the appropriate third country - Duty of care - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Sampling))
   (2015/C 363/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case C-324/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/116/EC — Inclusion of the yeast Candida guilliermondii in Annex I to Directive 82/471/ECC — Failure to adopt necessary measures)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-324/06) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/116/EC - Inclusion of the yeast Candida guilliermondii in Annex I to Directive 82/471/ECC - Failure to adopt necessary measures)
   (2007/C 82/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii (OJ 2004 L 379, p. 81)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224 of 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-275/07: Action brought on 8 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/21

         Action brought on 8 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-275/07)
   (2007/C 199/32)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and M. Velardo, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by

                           —

                           having refused to pay the Commission default interest totalling EUR 847.06 in respect of delay in entering customs entitlements in the accounts and having refused to bring national provisions into line with Community rules concerning entry in the accounts of uncontested customs operations covered by comprehensive security in respect of a Community transit operation, and

                           —

                           having refused to pay the Commission default interest totalling EUR 3 322 concerning failure to comply within the time limits prescribed by Community rules in respect of entry in ‘A’ accounts of customs entitlements in the field of transit operations as provided for in the TIR convention,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (1) and, in particular, Article 6(2)(a) thereof, replaced as from 31 May 2000 by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (2) and, in particular, Article 6(3)(a) thereof.

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission challenges two decisions of the Italian Republic. The first is its refusal to pay the Commission default interest of EUR 847.06 in respect of delay in entering customs entitlements in the accounts and having refused to bring national provisions into line with the Community rules concerning entry in the accounts of uncontested customs operations covered by comprehensive security in respect of a Community transit operation. The second is its refusal to pay the Commission default interest totalling EUR 3 322 concerning failure to comply within the time limits prescribed by Community rules in respect of entry in ‘A’ accounts of customs entitlements in the field of transit operations as provided for in the TIR convention.
   In support of the action, the applicant submits that the Italian Republic, in addition to having infringed Articles 8 and 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2)(a), replaced as from 31 May 2000 by Regulation No 1150/2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources and, in particular, Article 6(3)(a) thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.


title: Case T-656/16: Action brought on 12 September 2016 — PM v ECHA

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/58

         Action brought on 12 September 2016 — PM v ECHA
   (Case T-656/16)
   (2016/C 402/69)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: PM (represented by: C. Zambrano Almero, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should admit its action against decision No SME(2016) 3198 and annul that decision on the basis that PM is a small and medium-sized enterprise and therefore, since the correct amount of charges required by law with regard to such an enterprise have been paid, the registration applied for should be granted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant raises a single plea, based on the definition of a small and medium-sized enterprise set out in Article 2(1) of the annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC on the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. The applicant, together with the group of undertakings that it is a part of, claims that it satisfies the conditions laid down in that article.


title: Joined Cases T-118/11, T-123/11 and T-124/11: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Attey and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/20

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Attey and Others v Council
   (Joined Cases T-118/11, T-123/11 and T-124/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 227/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Philipp Attey (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (Case T-118/11); Thierry Legré (Abidjan) (Case T-123/11); and Stéphane Kipré (Abidjan) (T-124/11) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, Agents)

      Parties intervening in support of the defendant: Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.P. Mignard and J.P. Benoit, lawyers); and European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as the applicants’ names have been placed on the list of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-118/11, T-123/11 and T-124/11 are to be joined for the purposes of the order.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Philipp Attey, Mr Thierry Legré and Mr Stéphane Kipré.

               4.

               The Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case T-109/05: Action brought on 8 March 2005 by SpA Navigazione Libera del Golfo against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/43

         Action brought on 8 March 2005 by SpA Navigazione Libera del Golfo against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-109/05)
   (2005/C 106/84)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 March 2005 by SpA Navigazione Libera del Golfo (NLG), established in Naples, represented by S. Ravenna, lawyer, for annulment of the decision adopted on 3 February 2005, (1) under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, (2) a decision which upholds the refusal to grant access to the information requested by the applicant.
   The information requested by the applicant, of which the Commission refused disclosure, relates to the extra costs incurred by the passenger transport services between the Port of Naples Beverello and the island of Capri. Those services are operated by the public undertaking Caremar SpA, established in Naples, under a public service obligation, for which it receives annual payments (State aid) authorised by the Commission by decision of 16 March 2004, as provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission decision of 3 February 2005;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   When it informed the applicant of the decision of 16 March 2004, allegedly on the grounds of protection of the commercial interests of Caremar the Commission did not, when giving the reasons for its decision, disclose information on the operating costs of Caremar's commercial activities, in particular the extra costs incurred by the connections to the island of Capri carried out under public service obligations and the annual payments made for that service by the Region of Campania.
   The applicant has always operated similar passenger transport services on the same Naples Beverello-Capri route under public service obligations without, however, receiving any subsidy to offset the extra costs inherent in those obligations and, as a result, it regards that treatment as discriminatory.
   In the light of the applicant's legal interest in bringing proceedings and the need to acquire full knowledge of the Caremar decision within the shortest time for the purposes of protecting its own interests and of any consequent challenge to the decision of 16 March 2004, the applicant asked for access to information concerning the extra costs of the public service obligations borne by Caremar for the connections to the island of Capri and the amount of the aid relating thereto.
   By decision of 3 February 2005 the Commission refused access to the information requested by NLG, essentially pleading grounds of protection of the commercial interests of Caremar.
   Challenging that decision, NLG submits that the Commission committed, inter alia, a serious error of law by failing to have regard to the provisions of its Communication C(2003) 4582 of 1 December 2003 on professional secrecy in State aid decisions, (3) which expressly lays down in paragraph 17 the requirements of transparency and of disclosure of information regarding the costs of public services inasmuch as it is not considered confidential or protected as a business secret.

      (1)  Decision not published.

      (2)  OJ L 145 of 31.05.2001, p. 43.

      (3)  OJ C 297 of 09.12.2003, p. 6.


title: Case C-146/13: Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/15

         Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-146/13)
   2013/C 171/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Chamizo Llatas and S. Centeno Huerta, Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare legally non-existent Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and, in the alternative, annul that regulation in its entirety;

               —

               In the alternative, annul:

                           (a)

                           Article 9(1) in its entirety, and Article 9(2) in the terms set out in the fifth plea in law in support of this action;

                           (b)

                           Article 18(2) in its entirety, and all references in Regulation No 1257/2012 to the Unified Patent Court as the judicial regime for the EPUE [European patent with unitary effect] and as the source of law for the EPUE

               —

               Order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Breach of the values of the rule of law in so far as a regulation has been established on the basis of a right granted by the European Patent Office, whose acts are not subject to judicial review.

               2.

               Non-existence of an act of the European Union and, in the alternative, lack of a legal basis for Regulation No 1257/2012 in that it does not introduce measures guaranteeing the uniform protection envisaged in Article 118 TFEU.

               3.

               Misuse of power through the use of enhanced cooperation for purposes other than those provided for in the Treaties.

               4.

               Infringement of Article 291(2) TFEU and, in the alternative, misapplication of the Meroni case-law in the regulation of the system for setting renewal fees and for determining the ‘share of distribution’ of those fees.

               5.

               Misapplication of the Meroni case-law in the delegation to the European Patent Office of certain administrative tasks relating to the European patent with unitary effect.

               6.

               Breach of the principles of autonomy and uniformity in the application of European Union law, as regards the rules governing the entry into force of Regulation No 1257/2012.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 361, p. 1.


title: Case T-497/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark KOMPRESSOR PLUS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)
   (Case T-497/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark KOMPRESSOR PLUS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 46/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: J. Blanchard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 397/2009-1), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign KOMPRESSOR PLUS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-661/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2015 — X BV; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2015 — X BV; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-661/15)
   (2016/C 098/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X BV

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Should Article 145(2) of the Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code (CCIP), (1) read in conjunction with Article 29(1) and (3) of the Community Customs Code (CCC), (2) be interpreted as meaning that the rule laid down therein also applies in a case where it is established that, at the time of acceptance of the declaration for specific goods, there was a manufacture-related risk that a component of the goods might become defective during use, and in view of this the seller, pursuant to a contractual warranty towards the buyer, grants the latter a price reduction in the form of reimbursement of the costs incurred by the buyer in modifying the goods in order to exclude that risk?

               1.

                           (b)

                           In the event that the rule laid down in Article 145(2) of the CCIP does not apply in the case referred to above, are the provisions of Article 29(1) and (3) of the CCC, read in conjunction with Article 78 of the CCC, sufficient, without more, to reduce the declared customs value after the aforementioned price reduction has been granted?

               2.

               Is the condition laid down in Article 145(3) of the CCIP for adjustment of the customs value referred to therein, namely that the adjustment of the price actually paid or payable for the goods must have been made within a period of twelve months following the date of acceptance of the declaration for entry to free circulation, contrary to the provisions of Articles 78 and 236 of the CCC, read in conjunction with Article 29 of the CCC?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

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


title: Case T-73/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas against the Committee of the Regions of the European Union

text:
2.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 161/23
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:           As regards the alleged infringement which, according to the
                                                                        Commission extended from 1987 to at least the end of 1990,
                                                                        the applicant contends that the Commission did not give
—    find that the action taken against it was time-barred;             reasons to show, and did not show, that the alleged agreement
                                                                        was capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member
                                                                        States and that the infringement of Article 81 EC was not
—    in any event, annul the Commission Decision of                     established.
     13 December 2000 relating to a procedure under
     Article 81 of the Treaty (COMP/33.133-B: Soda-ash —
     Solvay, CFK);
                                                                        (1) Commission Decision 91/298/EEC of 19.12.1990 (IV/33.133-B:
                                                                            Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK), OJ L 152, 1991, p. 16.
                                                                        (2) Case T-31/91 Solvay v Commission [1995] II-1821.
—    find that the power to impose fines is time-barred;
                                                                        (3) Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95 P Commission v Solvay
                                                                            [2000] ECR I-2391.
                                                                        (4) Commission Decision of 13.12.2000 relating to a procedure
—    in any event, annul Article 2 of the contested decision, in            under Article 81 EC (COMP/33.133-B: Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK).
     so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 3 million on the
     applicant;
—    declare that no fine should be imposed on the applicant
     or, at the very least, that the fine should be substantially
     reduced;
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 22 March 2001 by Spyridon de
                                                                        Athanassios Pappas against the Committee of the Regions
                                                                                of the European Union
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                                (Case T-73/01)
The applicant is a company incorporated under Belgian law,                                       (2001/C 161/47)
which operates in the soda-ash sector through marketing
outlets in nine countries in Europe.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
On 19 December 1990, the Commission adopted Decision
91/298/EEC (1) finding that the applicant had participated in a         An action against the Committee of the Regions of the
market-sharing agreement under which it guaranteed CFK a                European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance
minimum annual tonnage of soda-ash sales in Germany and                 of the European Communities on 22 March 2001 by Spyridon
compensated CFK for any shortfall by purchasing from it the             de Athanassios Pappas, residing in Brussels, represented by
tonnages necessary to bring its sales up to the guaranteed              Marc-Albert Lucas, Lawyer.
minimum, and imposed on the applicant a fine of ECU 3 milli-
on. Proceedings for the annulment of that initial decision were
brought before the Court of First Instance. By judgment of
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
29 June 1995, the Court of First Instance annulled the
decision (2). The Commission’s appeal against that judgment
was dismissed by the Court of Justice. (3)                              —     annul the decision of 13 June 2000 of the Bureau of the
                                                                              Committee of the Regions of the European Union to
                                                                              appoint a third party as Secretary-General of the Com-
                                                                              mittee of the Regions;
On the 13 December 2000, the Commission adopted a
decision (4), in which the infringements already referred to in
the initial decision were imputed to the applicant. In that             —     annul the relevant decision of 13 June 2000 of the Bureau
decision, the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant of                   of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union
EUR 3 million.                                                                to reject the applicant’s application for that post, which
                                                                              was notified to him by letter of 22 June 2000 from the
                                                                              President of the Bureau;
The applicant seeks annulment of that decision relying, for the
most part, on the arguments put forward in Case T-57/01.                —     order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/24               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                  —     infringement of the recruitment notice under
                                                                              Article 12(2)(e) of the Conditions of Employment of
                                                                              Other Servants, since the successful candidate did not
                                                                              meet the conditions concerning knowledge of languages
                                                                              laid down in that provision.
The applicant, who was a candidate for the post of Secretary-
General of the Committee of the Regions, opposes the decision
of the defendant institution to reject his application.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
—    infringement of the first sentence of the first paragraph          Action brought on 29 March 2001 by Albano Ferrer
     of Article 11 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
                                                                        de Moncada against the Commission of the European
     Servants and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, in that                                    Communities
     the contested decisions do not contain an adequate
     statement of the reasons on which they are based;
                                                                                (Case T-74/01)
—    breach of the principles of objectivity of recruitment
                                                                                (2001/C 161/48)
     procedure and equal treatment of candidates, in that
     the acting Secretary-General was responsible for the
     recruitment procedure at issue;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—    breach of the principles of objectivity and equal treatment
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     in the selection procedure and in the decision setting up
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 29 March
     that procedure, since;
                                                                        2001 by Albano Ferrer de Moncada, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                        represented by Luc Misson and Laurent Wysen, Lawyers, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
     —     the applicant’s application was not forwarded in full
           to the ad hoc committee responsible for examining
           the recruitment procedure or to the Bureau;                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                        —     annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
     —     the administration forwarded to the Bureau a docu-                 plaint, dated 19 September 2000, on the basis of
           ment indicating that the applicant did not satisfy the             Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
           conditions for preferential treatment laid down in
           the notice;
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay LUF 5 million to the applicant
                                                                              as compensation for non-material damage;
     —     two of the four candidates had a meeting with
           certain members of the Bureau the day before its             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
           meeting of 19 May;
                                                                        Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
     —     the agenda of the meeting of the Bureau included
           submission to the Bureau by the acting Secretary-
           General, in agreement with the President, of the
           Annual Operational Programme for the Committee;              The applicant states that one or more persons, whose identity
                                                                        at this stage is unknown to him, have been making, in
                                                                        particular within the EURATOM departments of the Com-
                                                                        mission, calumnious, insulting and defamatory allegations
     —     the ad hoc committee did not draw up a reasoned              against him, calling in question his professional integrity and
           list of successful candidates, or did not give an            stating, among other things, that he disclosed confidential
           opinion to the Bureau after interviewing the candi-          information to third parties. A case-file has been opened on
           dates;                                                       the subject.


title: Case C-462/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt (Wien) by order of that Court of 27 October 2003 in the case of STRABAG AG against Österreichische Bundesbahnen

text:
C 21/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        24.1.2004
(C) Is this tax on marble compatible with Articles 81 EC to            In particular:
     89 EC (ex Articles 85 to 90 and 92 to 94 of the EC
     Treaty), which lay down a series of rules intended to             1.   Are only ‘traditional’ homeopathic medicinal products
     create a system which will ensure that competition on                  subject to the special, simplified registration procedure
     the common market is not distorted and which will                      under Article 14 et seq. of Directive 2001/83/EC?
     remove subsisting impediments in order to attain that
     objective?                                                        2.   If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, can a
                                                                            medicinal product also be considered ‘traditional’ if it is
(D) If the answer to the previous question is ‘No’ — having                 manufactured using bibliographically identified homeo-
     regard to the fact that, in respect of the municipality in             pathic stocks without having been in actual homeopathic
     which the tax on marble (and derivatives) is levied the                use in that combination prior to the registration applied
     Treaty provides no special measures in favour of the                   for;
     Italian Republic — is it compatible with Community law                 or:
     for a legislative provision to impose a pecuniary charge
     (the ‘tax on marble’) on goods transported out of one                  Does the second indent of the second sentence of
     municipality and intended for other regions of the same                Article 15 of Directive 2001/83/EC permit a Member
     State, or does not that particular charge instead involve              State to require that, for registration of a homeopathic
     less favourable treatment of goods intended for those                  medicinal product that is manufactured using a number
     regions in comparison with goods exported in other                     of homeopathic stocks, a bibliography must be produced
     Member States, and does not this pecuniary charge                      that refers to the combination preparation as such?
     constitute an impediment to free movement of goods
     throughout the European market?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 311, p. 67.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                       beamt (Wien) by order of that Court of 27 October 2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               in the case of STRABAG AG against Österreichische
richt Berlin by order of that Court of 28 August 2003 in                                        Bundesbahnen
the case of meta Fackler KG against Federal Republic of
                            Germany
                                                                                (Case C-462/03)
                        (Case C-444/03)                                                         (2004/C 21/21)
                         (2004/C 21/20)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
                                                                       (Wien) (Federal Procurement Office, Vienna) of 27 October
                                                                       2003, received at the Court Registry on 4 November 2003,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of STRABAG AG against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Österreichische Bundesbahnen on the following questions:
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Berlin (Administrative Court Berlin) of 28 August 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2003, for a               1.   Is Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 93/38/EEC (1) to be inter-
preliminary ruling in the case of meta Fackler KG against                   preted as meaning that, contrary to the other factual
Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:                     situations covered by Article 2(2) of the Directive, in the
                                                                            area of transport ‘merely’ the operation of networks is to
                                                                            be considered a sectoral activity?
Is the rule contained in Paragraph 39(2) No 7a of the                  2.   Which activities fall within the scope of ‘the operation of
Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on Medicinal Products, ‘AMG’) com-                  networks providing a service to the public in the field of
patible with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament                transport by railway’ under Article 2(2)(c) of Directive
and of the Council of 6 November 2001 (1) (‘Directive 2001/                 93/38/EEC? To what extent are, in particular, measures
83/EC’) in so far as it refuses registration for a medicinal                in the field of infrastructure to be subsumed under this
product composed of bibliographically identified homeopathic                heading? To what extent are such measures in the field of
constituents if its ‘administration as a homeopathic medicinal              infrastructure to be classified under the heading ‘provision
product is not generally known’?                                            of networks’?
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 21/13
3.   Inasmuch as in the (railway) transport sector it is                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
     exclusively the operation of networks that is governed by           Baden-Baden by order of that Court of 20 October 2003
     Directive 93/38/EEC (affirmation of Question 1): Does a             in the appeal brought by Albert Reiss Beteiligungsge-
     review authority have to refrain from applying a national                sellschaft mbH against Land Baden-Württemberg
     provision in which, contrary to the wording of Directive
     93/38/EEC, also the ‘provision of networks providing a                                      (Case C-466/03)
     service to the public in the field of transport by railway’
     is listed as a sectoral activity?                                                            (2004/C 21/23)
(1) OJ L 199, p. 84.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Landgericht Baden-
                                                                         Baden (Regional Court, Baden-Baden) of 20 October 2003,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 6 November 2003, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Albert Reiss
                                                                         Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH against Land Baden-Württem-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-                   berg on the following question:
beamt (Wien) by order of that Court of 27 October 2003
in the case of Kostmann GesmbH against Österreichische                   Does Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                          Bundesbahnen                                   1969 (1) concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
                                                                         amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (2),
                         (Case C-463/03)                                 also encompass charges for the notarially attested transfer of
                                                                         shares in a private limited company?
                          (2004/C 21/22)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 249, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 156, p. 23.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Wien) (Federal Procurement Office, Vienna) of 27 October
2003, received at the Court Registry on 4 November 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kostmann GesmbH                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
against Österreichische Bundesbahnen on the following ques-              München by order of that Court of 24 June 2003 in
tions:                                                                   the case of Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH against
                                                                                Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
1.   Is Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 93/38/EEC (1) to be inter-
     preted as meaning that, contrary to the other factual
     situations covered by Article 2(2) of the Directive, in the                                 (Case C-467/03)
     area of transport ‘merely’ the operation of networks is to
     be considered a sectoral activity?                                                           (2004/C 21/24)
2.   Which activities fall within the scope of ‘the operation of
     networks providing a service to the public in the field of          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     transport by railway’ under Article 2(2)(c) of Directive            European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-
     93/38/EEC? To what extent are, in particular, measures              chen (Finance Court, Munich) of 24 June 2003, received at the
     in the field of infrastructure to be subsumed under this            Court Registry on 6 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling
     heading? To what extent are such measures in the field of           in the case of Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH against
     infrastructure to be classified under the heading ‘provision        Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg on the following question:
     of networks’?
                                                                         Is note 5 E of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of
3.   Inasmuch as in the (railway) transport sector it is
                                                                         Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of [6 August]
     exclusively the operation of networks that is governed by
                                                                         2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
     Directive 93/38/EEC (affirmation of Question 1): Does a
                                                                         No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on
     review authority have to refrain from applying a national
                                                                         the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279) to be interpreted
     provision in which, contrary to the wording of Directive
                                                                         as meaning that video monitoring apparatus which stores
     93/38/EEC, also the ‘provision of networks providing a
                                                                         signals from several video cameras compressed on hard disks
     service to the public in the field of transport by railway’
                                                                         for reproduction on monitors performs a different function
     is listed as a sectoral activity?
                                                                         from that of data processing?
(1) OJ L 199, p. 84.                                                     (1) OJ L 279, p. 1.


title: Case T-250/10: Action brought on 31 May 2010 — KNUT IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin (KNUT — DER EISBÄR)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/50

         Action brought on 31 May 2010 — KNUT IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin (KNUT — DER EISBÄR)
   (Case T-250/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/75
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: KNUT IP Management Ltd. (London, England) (represented by: C. Jaeckel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG (Berlin, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2010 in Case R 650/2009-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘KNUT — DER EISBÄR’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘KNUD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 28; German word mark ‘Knut — der Eisbär’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28 and 41; German word mark ‘KNUT’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43; German word mark ‘KNUT’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 18, 21, 25, 28, 35, 41 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and opposition upheld in full.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-558/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — FSA v OHIM — Motokit Veículos e Acessórios (FSA K-FORCE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark FSA K-FORCE — Earlier Community word mark FORCE-X — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — FSA v OHIM — Motokit Veículos e Acessórios (FSA K-FORCE)
   (Case T-558/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark FSA K-FORCE - Earlier Community word mark FORCE-X - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 127/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FSA Srl (Busnago, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli and M. Cartella, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Motokit Veículos e Acessórios, SA (Vagos, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2013 (Case R 436/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Motokit Veículos e Acessórios, SA and FSA Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 August 2013 (Case R 436/2012-2);

               2)

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-111/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Unitec Bio v Council (Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Direct concern — Individual concern — Admissibility — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Unitec Bio v Council
   (Case T-111/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))
   (2016/C 402/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unitec Bio SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and G. Bathory, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern Unitec Bio SA;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Unitec Bio;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case C-594/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — ‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona (References for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(g) — Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to welfare and social security work — Concept of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ — Temporary-work agency — Hiring out of qualified care workers — Exemption not allowed)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/4

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — ‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona
   (Case C-594/13) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(g) - Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to welfare and social security work - Concept of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ - Temporary-work agency - Hiring out of qualified care workers - Exemption not allowed))
   (2015/C 146/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that neither State-examined care workers who provide their services directly to persons in need of care nor a temporary-work agency which supplies such workers to establishments recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing come within the scope of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ contained in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-34/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark HERBA SHINE — Earlier national, Community and international word marks Herbacin — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Statement of reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)
   (Case T-34/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark HERBA SHINE - Earlier national, Community and international word marks Herbacin - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Statement of reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2014/C 15/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Herbacin cosmetic GmbH (Wutha-Farnroda, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1), relating to an opposition procedure between Herbacin cosmetic GmbH and Laboratoire Garnier et Cie.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1);

               2.

               Orders the OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case C-156/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Tamoil Italia SpA v Ministero dell'Ambiente e delle Tutela del Territorio e del Mare Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 191(2) TFEU — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability — National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities — Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/12

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Tamoil Italia SpA v Ministero dell'Ambiente e delle Tutela del Territorio e del Mare
   (Case C-156/14) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 191(2) TFEU - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities - Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority)
   (2016/C 038/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tamoil Italia SpA

      Defendant: Ministero dell'Ambiente e delle Tutela del Territorio e del Mare

      Intervening party: Provincia di Venezia, Comune di Venezia, Regione Veneto

      Operative part of the order

   Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, where it is impossible to identify the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures, does not permit the competent authority to require the owner of the land (who is not responsible for the pollution) to adopt preventive and remedial measures, that person being required merely to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority within the limit of the market value of the site, determined after those measures have been carried out.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-116/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Serron (Greece)) — Ioannis Christodoulou, Nikolaos Christodoulou, Afi N. Christodoulou AE v Elliniko Dimosio (Customs value — Goods exported to a third country — Export refunds — Processing in the exporting country regarded as non-substantial — Re-export of goods to the European Union — Determination of the customs value — Transaction value)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Serron (Greece)) — Ioannis Christodoulou, Nikolaos Christodoulou, Afi N. Christodoulou AE v Elliniko Dimosio
   (Case C-116/12) (1)

   (Customs value - Goods exported to a third country - Export refunds - Processing in the exporting country regarded as non-substantial - Re-export of goods to the European Union - Determination of the customs value - Transaction value)
   2014/C 52/12
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Diikitiko Protodikio Serron

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ioannis Christodoulou, Nikolaos Christodoulou, Afi N. Christodoulou AE

      Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Protodikio Serron — Interpretation of Articles 24, 29, 32 and 146 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value — Transaction value — Determination — Goods exported undergoing working or processing in the exporting country not sufficient for them to be considered as originating in the country of final processing within the meaning of Article 24 of the Regulation and without being subjected to outward processing arrangements for re-importation into the country of original export.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 29 and 32 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as applying to the determination of the customs value of goods imported on the basis of a contract which, although described as a contract of sale, in fact proves to be a working or processing contract. For the purposes of that determination, it is immaterial whether the working or processing operations satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 24 of that regulation, so that the goods concerned may be regarded as originating in the country where those operations took place.

               2.

               Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the customs value is determined, account must be taken of the value of the export refund which a product has benefited from and which was obtained by putting into effect a practice involving the application of provisions of European Union law with the aim of wrongfully securing an advantage.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case C-326/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Taxation of income from investment funds — Investment fund’s obligations to communicate and publish certain information — Flat-rate taxation of income from investment funds which do not comply with communication and publication obligations)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd
   (Case C-326/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Taxation of income from investment funds - Investment fund’s obligations to communicate and publish certain information - Flat-rate taxation of income from investment funds which do not comply with communication and publication obligations))
   (2014/C 439/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster

      Defendant: Finanzamt Essen-Süd

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides that the failure by a non-resident investment fund to comply with the obligations to communicate and publish certain information required by that legislation, which are applicable without distinction to resident and non-resident investment funds alike, resulting in the flat-rate taxation of the income which the taxpayer earns from that investment fund, since that legislation does not allow the taxpayer to provide evidence or information that could prove the actual size of that income.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case F-83/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — Pujante Cuadrupani v GSA (Civil service — Recruitment — Temporary staff — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Action for annulment brought against both the dismissal decision and the confirmatory dismissal decision — Whether admissible — Third paragraph of Article 14 of the CEOS — Misuse of powers and abuse of process — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Consultation of the Joint Evaluation Committee — Opinion based on examining written material without hearing the applicant — No infringement of the rights of the defence)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — Pujante Cuadrupani v GSA
   (Case F-83/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Recruitment - Temporary staff - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Action for annulment brought against both the dismissal decision and the confirmatory dismissal decision - Whether admissible - Third paragraph of Article 14 of the CEOS - Misuse of powers and abuse of process - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Consultation of the Joint Evaluation Committee - Opinion based on examining written material without hearing the applicant - No infringement of the rights of the defence))
   (2016/C 136/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonio Pujante Cuadrupani (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European GNSS Agency (represented by: O. Lambinet and D. Petrlík, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s probationary report and the subsequent decision of the Executive Director of the European GNSS Agency to dismiss him at the end of his probationary period.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Pujante Cuadrupani to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European GNSS Agency.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015, p. 60.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 June 2001 in Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Deductibility of tax on the acquisition of vehicles used to carry out taxable transactions — Limitation to vehicles used exclusively for driving instruction)

text:
C 212/2                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.7.2001
1.    Articles 2(c) and (d), final indent, and 3 of the Second Council         (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam, and, subsequently,
      Directive (88/357/EEC) of 22 June 1988 on the coordination               J.-F. Dobelle and S. Seam), supported by United Kingdom of
      of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to           Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted
      direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down               by G. Barling QC) — application for a declaration that, by
      provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide    applying to vehicles used by taxable persons carrying on the
      services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC permit a Member               activity of driving instructors the condition that, in order for
      State to levy insurance tax on a legal person established in             such persons to be able to exercise their right to deduct the
      another Member State in respect of premiums which that legal             value added tax charged on the initial acquisition of those
      person has paid to an insurer, also established in other Member          vehicles, they must be used exclusively for that activity, the
      State, to cover the business risks of its subsidiary or sub-             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      subsidiary established in the Member State making the levy. It           Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
      makes no difference if the legal person which paid the premiums          17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
      and the legal person whose business risks are covered are two            States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
      companies in the same group linked by a relationship other               added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
      than that of parent and subsidiary company.                              in the version resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of
                                                                               10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/388 and introducing
2.    In interpreting ‘policy-holder’ or ‘Member State in which the            new simplification measures with regard to value added tax —
      risk is situated’ for the purposes of Article 2(d), final indent, of     scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
      Directive 88/357, the way in which the premium relating to               implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth
      the risk insured is invoiced or paid within a group of companies         Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
      is immaterial.                                                           Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
                                                                               and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June
                                                                               2001, in which it:
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                               1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                               2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs;
                                                                               3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 14 June 2001                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    (Third Chamber)
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                of 14 June 2001
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                         in Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive —                                               ties v Republic of Austria (1)
Deductibility of tax on the acquisition of vehicles used to
carry out taxable transactions — Limitation to vehicles used                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                 exclusively for driving instruction)
                                                                               Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks
                                                                               related to exposure to biological agents at work — Failure to
                            (2001/C 212/03)                                                implement within the prescribed period)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/04)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communities                       In Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic                         (Agent: W. Bogensberger) v Republic of Austria (Agent:


title: Case T-589/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/21

         Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA
   (Case T-589/15) (1)

   (2016/C 165/28)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-179/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Determination of the social security legislation applicable to a worker — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Applicability — Employment of a national of a Member State at the consulate of a third State in the territory of another Member State in whose territory he resides — Vienna Convention on consular relations — Article 71(2) — National legislation according facilities, privileges and immunities to permanent residents)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans
      (Case C-179/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Determination of the social security legislation applicable to a worker - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Applicability - Employment of a national of a Member State at the consulate of a third State in the territory of another Member State in whose territory he resides - Vienna Convention on consular relations - Article 71(2) - National legislation according facilities, privileges and immunities to permanent residents)
      (2015/C 073/05)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Centrale Raad van Beroep

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

         Defendant: L.F. Evans

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, read in conjunction with Article 16 of that regulation, should be construed as meaning that, for the period during which a national of a Member State has been employed at a consular post of a third State within the territory of a Member State of which he is not a national but within whose territory he resides, that national is not subject to the legislation of a Member State within the meaning of this provision if, by virtue of the legislation of his Member State of residence, adopted pursuant to Article 71(2) of the Vienna Convention on consular relations, concluded at Vienna on 24 April 1963, he is not affiliated to the national social security scheme.

         (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case C-38/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (Appeal — The Court’s power of review — Regulations (EC) Nos 2100/94 and 1239/95 — Agriculture — Community plant variety rights — Distinctness of the candidate variety — Variety a matter of common knowledge — Proof — Plant variety SUMCOL 01)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
   (Case C-38/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - The Court’s power of review - Regulations (EC) Nos 2100/94 and 1239/95 - Agriculture - Community plant variety rights - Distinctness of the candidate variety - Variety a matter of common knowledge - Proof - Plant variety SUMCOL 01)
   2010/C 148/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and B. Kiewiet, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2008 in Case T-187/06 Schräder v CPVO, by which that Court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 2 May 2006 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the CPVO concerning the rejection of the application for Community plant variety rights in respect of the plant variety ‘SUMCOL 01’ — Distinctness of the candidate variety — Factors which can be taken into consideration in order to determine whether a variety is a matter of common knowledge — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mr Schräder to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.


title: Case T-420/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Abril Sánchez and Ricote Saugar (Boomerang TV ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community figurative mark Boomerang TV — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BOOMERANG and Boomerang — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — No damage to reputation — Failure to produce evidence before the Opposition Division of the existence of certain earlier trade marks or translations thereof — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(c), Article 8(5) and Article 74(2) of Regulation EC No 40/94 — Rule 16(2) and (3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Abril Sánchez and Ricote Saugar (BoomerangTV)
   (Case T-420/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark BoomerangTV - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BOOMERANG and Boomerang - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - No damage to reputation - Failure to produce evidence before the Opposition Division of the existence of certain earlier trade marks or translations thereof - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(c), Article 8(5) and Article 74(2) of Regulation EC No 40/94 - Rule 16(2) and (3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   (2008/C 197/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo and E. López Leiva, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: José Matías Abril Sánchez and Pedro Ricote Saugar (Madrid) (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2003 (Case R 88/2003-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés SA, and J.M. Abril Sánchez and P. Ricote Saugar.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.


title: Case C-510/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) — DR, TV2 Danmark A/S v NCB — Nordisk Copyright Bureau (Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(2)(d) — Right to communicate works to the public — Exception to the reproduction right — Ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts — Recording made with the facilities of a third party — Obligation of the broadcasting organisation to pay compensation for any adverse effects of the actions and omissions of the third party)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) — DR, TV2 Danmark A/S v NCB — Nordisk Copyright Bureau
   (Case C-510/10) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(2)(d) - Right to communicate works to the public - Exception to the reproduction right - Ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts - Recording made with the facilities of a third party - Obligation of the broadcasting organisation to pay compensation for any adverse effects of the actions and omissions of the third party)
   2012/C 174/10
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DR, TV2 Danmark A/S

      Defendant: NCB — Nordisk Copyright Bureau

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 5(2)(d) 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 (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Conditions for benefiting from an exception to the reproduction right — Ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts — Broadcasting organisation which has commissioned recordings from independent external television production companies for the purpose of broadcasting them in the course of its own transmissions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The expression ‘by means of their own facilities’ in Article 5(2)(d) 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 must be given an independent and uniform interpretation within the framework of European Union law.

               2.

               Article 5(2)(d) of Directive 2001/29, read in the light of recital 41 in the preamble to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a broadcasting organisation’s own facilities include the facilities of any third party acting on behalf of or under the responsibility of that organisation.

               3.

               For the purposes of ascertaining whether a recording made by a broadcasting organisation, for its own broadcasts, with the facilities of a third party, is covered by the exception laid down in Article 5(2)(d) of Directive 2001/29 in respect of ephemeral recordings, it is for the national court to assess whether, in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, that party may be regarded as acting specifically ‘on behalf of’ the broadcasting organisation or, at the very least, ‘under the responsibility’ of that organisation. As regards whether that party may be regarded as acting ‘under the responsibility’ of the broadcasting organisation, it is essential that, vis-à-vis other persons, among others the authors who may be harmed by an unlawful recording of their works, the broadcasting organisation is required to pay compensation for any adverse effects of the acts and omissions of the third party, such as a legally independent external television production company, connected with the recording in question, as if the broadcasting organisation had itself carried out those acts and made those omissions.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case F-14/10: Action brought on 25 February 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/54

         Action brought on 25 February 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-14/10)
   2010/C 134/90
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Lecce, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for a declaration that a procedure for recognition of partial invalidity was of excessive duration and an order that the defendant pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the request of 30 January 2009.

               —

               Annul the measure rejecting the complaint of 20 July 2009 against the decision rejecting the request of 30 January 2009.

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul note ADMIN.B.2/MB/ls D(09) 29562 of 6 November 2009 received by the applicant on 16 December 2009.

               —

               In so far as necessary, confirm that the procedure for ensuring that the applicant was afforded the legal guarantees under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities in connection with an accident sustained by him on 12 September 2003 continued for over five years.

               —

               In so far as necessary, declare that the duration of the procedure in question was unreasonable.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage unjustly suffered by the applicant in connection with the unreasonable duration of the procedure in question, in the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, with effect from the date following that on which the request of 30 January 2009 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 10 000, interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2005 in Case T-266/00 Confartigianato Venezia, Transport Lines Snc and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid — National procedure for repayment precluded — Action for annulment — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/18

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 March 2005
   in Case T-266/00 Confartigianato Venezia, Transport Lines Snc and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid - National procedure for repayment precluded - Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 155/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-266/00: Confartigianato Venezia, Transport Lines and the 15 other applicants listed in the Annex to the order, established in Venice (Italy), represented by A. Vianello, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij, N.J Forwood, I. Pelikánová, S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible in so far as it was brought by Transport Lines Snc, C.A.T.I.L. Consorzio Artigianato Trasportatori Interni Lagunari, C.A.T.I.L. Servizi Srl, Translion Snc, Cooperativa Trasportatori Lagunari Arl, Barich Aldo e figlio Snc, S.A.L.P.A. Trasporti Snc, Laguna Trasporti di Tosi Pietro, Puppola Trasporti e C. Snc, Simionato Roberto, Venerando Gianfranco Snc, Boscolo ‘Bielo’ Ivano Srl, Grassi Mario, Laguna Veneta Cooperativa Trasporti Srl, Brussa Sas and Il Fornaio di Colussi Gloria.

               2.

               Transport Lines Snc, C.A.T.I.L. Consorzio Artigianato Trasportatori Interni Lagunari, C.A.T.I.L. Servizi Srl, Translion Snc, Cooperativa Trasportatori Lagunari Arl, Barich Aldo e figlio Snc, S.A.L.P.A. Trasporti Snc, Laguna Trasporti di Tosi Pietro, Puppola Trasporti e C. Snc, Simionato Roberto, Venerando Gianfranco Snc, Boscolo ‘Bielo’ Ivano Srl, Grassi Mario, Laguna Veneta Cooperativa Trasporti Srl, Brussa Sas and Il Fornaio di Colussi Gloria shall bear their own costs.

               3.

               The Commission shall bear the costs it has incurred to date in connection with the action brought by the abovementioned sixteen undertakings.

               4.

               The remainder of the costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.


title: Case T-405/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2009 — ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Community market in beams — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS, after expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competence of the Commission — Liability for the infringement — Limitation — Rights of the defence)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2009 — ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission
   (Case T-405/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Community market in beams - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS, after expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competence of the Commission - Liability for the infringement - Limitation - Rights of the defence)
   2009/C 113/66
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg); and ArcelorMittel International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Arbault, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams) inasmuch as it concerns ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ArcelorMittal International SA;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders, in so far as the present case is between them, the Commission to pay, in addition its own expenses, the costs incurred by ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ArcelorMittal International;

               4.

               Orders, in so far as the present case is between them, ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.