title: Case F-108/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Belis v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the merits of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/51

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Belis v Commission
      (Case F-108/14) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action - Application for a decision not going to the merits of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2016/C 364/66)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Claudio Belis (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision crediting the applicant’s pension rights in relation to the transfer of those rights to the European Union pension scheme, pursuant to the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr Claudio Belis shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26/1/2015, p. 46.


title: Case C-457/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-457/15)
   (2015/C 398/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vattenfall Europe Generation AG

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the inclusion of the category ‘Activities for the combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW’ in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC (1) result in the emissions trading obligation of an installation for the generation of electricity thereby starting on the date of the first emissions of greenhouse gases and thus potentially before the date of the first generation of electricity by the installation?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Is Article 19(2) of the Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 (2011/278/EU) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the emissions of greenhouse gases which occur prior to the start of normal operation of an installation included in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC already trigger the operator’s obligation to report and surrender emission allowances on the date of the first emissions during the construction phase of the installation?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:
               Is Article 19(2) of the Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 (2011/278/EU) to be interpreted as precluding the application of the national implementing provision in Paragraph 18(4) of the Zuteilungsverordnung 2020 (2020 Allocation Regulation) to installations for the generation of electricity with regard to the determination of the start of the emissions trading obligation?

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (2)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case C-476/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Frankenthal (Pfalz), by order of that court of 11 October 2001, in criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper

text:
2.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 56/5
4.    Is the conclusion of a contract preceded by advertising            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
      within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Convention           richt Stuttgart by order of 20 November 2001 in the case
      where the other party to the subsequent contract with              of Georgios Orfanopoulos, Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina
      the consumer advertised his products by brochure in the            Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfanopoulos against Land Ba-
      Contracting State of the consumer but did not advertise                                   den-Württemberg
      the products the consumer subsequently bought in it?
                                                                                (Case C-482/01)
5.    Is there a consumer contract within the meaning of
      Article 13 of the Convention where the seller makes an                                      (2002/C 56/10)
      offer by telephone from his own State to the buyer who
      lives in a different State, and the offer is not accepted but
      the buyer subsequently buys the product thus offered in
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      response to a written offer?
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                         Stuttgart (Finance Court Stuttgart) of 20 November 2001,
6.    Does the consumer take the steps necessary for the                 received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2001, for a
      conclusion of the contract in his own State within the             preliminary ruling in the case of Georgios Orfanopoulos,
      meaning of Article 13(3)(b) of the Convention where an             Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfa-
      offer is made to him in the State of his contracting               nopoulos against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following
      partner and he accepts that offer by telephone from his            questions:
      own State?
                                                                         1.   Is a restriction on the freedom of movement of a foreign
                                                                              EU national with many year’s residence in a host State,
                                                                              ordered on account of a criminal offence under the
                                                                              Betäubungsmittelgesetz (Law on Narcotics), in conformity
                                                                              with European Law in terms of Article 39(3) EC on
                                                                              grounds of public policy, public security or public health,
                                                                              where, on account of his personal conduct, there is a
                                                                              justified expectation that he will also commit future
                                                                              criminal offences and where the spouse of the EU national
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                         and his children cannot reasonably be expected to live in
Frankenthal (Pfalz), by order of that court of 11 October                     his State of origin?
    2001, in criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper
                                                                         2.   Does Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC(1) of
                                                                              25 February 1964 preclude national legislation which no
                          (Case C-476/01)                                     longer provides for objection proceedings in which an
                                                                              examination of expediency is also carried out in relation
                                                                              to a decision of an administrative authority to expel the
                           (2002/C 56/09)                                     holder of a residence permit from the national territory, if
                                                                              a special body which is independent of the administrative
                                                                              authority adopting the decision has not been established?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   (1) OJ L 56, p. 850.
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht (District
Court) Frankenthal (Pfalz) of 11 October 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 7 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper, on the
following question:
                                                                         Action brought on 17 December 2001 by the Commission
Does Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) of                 of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
29 July 1991 on driving licences preclude a Member State                                             Sweden
from refusing to recognise a driving licence where, according
to its investigations, another Member State issued that licence                                  (Case C-490/01)
although the holder of the licence did not have his normal
residence there, and in appropriate cases is actual effect to be                                  (2002/C 56/11)
given to that provision in that regard?
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
(1) OJ L 237, 1991, p. 1.                                                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius and C. Tufvesson,
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Vicente Alonso Morales against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-299/97)

text:
C 41/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.2.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      proposed for Air France, not taking into account the
                                                                         importance of the objective of privatisation,
                                                                         prohibition on further State aid, prohibition of
The applicant, a limited private law company operating in                acquiring new shares in other air carriers, abolition of
the air transport industry, contests the Commission's                    all forms of preferential treatment, imposition of an
decision which considered the investment provided for in                 analytical accounting system, prohibition on price
the restructuring plan submitted to the defendant by the                 leadership, requirement to dispose of the share held in
Italian authority to be State aid within the meaning of                  MaleÂv).
Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the                Finally, the applicant considers that the defendant did not
following pleas in law:                                              provide a proper statement of reasons for the contested
                                                                     decision or examined carefully and impartially all the
                                                                     factors relevant to the case. The applicant also claims that
Ð Infringement         and     erroneous     application     of      it breached the rights of the defence.
     Articles 92(1), 90(1) and 222 of the EC Treaty,
     inasmuch as the Commission considered that the
     criterion of the investor operating in a market
     economy is not fulfilled so far as concerns the
     investment made by Istituto per la Ricostruzione
     Industriale (IRI) of Lit 2 750 billion. Alitalia maintains
     in that regard that the capital injection in question did
                                                                     Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Vicente Alonso
     not preclude the right of option of third parties who
                                                                          Morales against the Commission of the European
     were thus free to subscribe to the various tranches of
                                                                                Communities
     the capital increase in proportion to their shares.
     Moreover, the Italian Government had clearly stated                                   (Case T-299/97)
     its firm determination to privatise Alitalia as soon as
     possible once authorization had been obtained for the                                   (98/C 41/46)
     capital increase. Finally, its employees agreed to
     subscribe to a capital increase reserved to them which
     would give them a 20 % share of the company's                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
     capital. The defendant ignored those factors and did
     not take account of the wide margin of discretion of
     IRI as an investor, but rather substituted its own              An action against the Commission of the European
     assessment for that of IRI and found unsatisfactory the         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     profit rate which the Commission itself had set at a            Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
     level (20 %) five points higher than that considered            1997 by Vicente Alonso Morales, residing in Madrid,
     normal in the air transport industry (15 %).                    represented by Ramón MareÂs Salvador, of the Madrid Bar,
     Furthermore, the Commission did not restrict itself to          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     requiring a normal' profitability of 20 %, but instead         Chambers of Carlos Amo QuinÄones, 2 Rue Gabriel
     set an annual rate of return (hurdle rate) which, in its        Lippman.
     opinion, an investor would require in view of the
     continuing large risks of the operation. In this regard,
     the applicant adds that the calculation of profitability        The applicant claims that the Court should:
     is erroneous and the statement of grounds is defective
     inasmuch as insolvency costs are not included.
     Moreover, to require Alitalia to bear all the costs of          Ð annul the decision of 1 October 1997 of the selection
     the early retirement programme for employees also                   board in competition COM/A/1047 to reject the
     entailed a reduction of the internal rate of return                 applicant's candidature to that competition and
     (IRR),                                                              acknowledge the applicant's right to be included in the
                                                                         list of eligible candidates for competition COM/A/
                                                                         1047,
Ð Infringement and erroneous application of the third
     paragraph of Article 92 and misuse of powers. Alitalia
     finds it inexplicable that, having decided that the
     investment was State aid', the Commission should               Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
     have failed to take into account the results which the              to pay the costs.
     plan was expected to achieve, above all with regard to
     deciding whether or not to impose conditions to
     render the plan compatible with the common market',            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and, secondly with regard to the gradual introduction
     of such conditions. That led to the placing on the
     applicant of conditions which are disproportionate,             The applicant, who is an ingeniero teÂcnico en industrias
     discriminatory, unlawful and unjustified (limitation on         agrícolas' (agricultural industry expert), challenges the
     capacity and growth, requirement to dispose of more             decision of the selection board for general competition
     of its non-core business, different solution to that            COM/A/1047 to reject his candidature to that
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.98                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/23
competition. According to that decision, the applicant's               Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Benito Latino
certificates and diplomas did not fulfil the conditions laid             against the Commission of the European Communities
down in point III.B.2 of the competition notice, according                                   (Case T-300/97)
to which candidates were required to have completed full
university studies certified by a diploma (degree or                                           (98/C 41/47)
equivalent).
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant considers that possession of the diploma in              An action against the Commission of the European
ingeniería teÂcnica' presupposes full university studies              Communities was brought before the Court of First
certified by a diploma and that the selection board is                 Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
imposing a requirement which does not appear in the                    1997 by Benito Latino, residing in Brussels, represented by
wording of the vacancy notice.                                         Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, 11 Rue Paul Emile
                                                                       Janson, Brussels.
In support of his claims, the applicant puts forward the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
following pleas in law:
                                                                       Ð order the Commission to pay, pursuant to Article 73
                                                                           of the Staff Regulations and Article 14 of the Rules on
Ð Breach of the principle of equal treatment,
                                                                           the insurance of officials of the European
                                                                           Communities against the risk of accident and of
                                                                           occupational disease, a capital sum, based on the rate
Ð Infringement of Directive 89/48/EEC (1), the provisions
                                                                           of permanent partial incapacity determined by the
     of which are considered applicable, by way of analogy,
                                                                           Court, in respect of the asbestosis contracted by the
     to any competition notice,
                                                                           applicant,
Ð Breach of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch                 Ð order the Commission to pay ECU 1 000 000 by way
     as, in the applicant's view, the requirement to hold a                of compensation for the non-material damage suffered
     long cycle diploma is neither necessary nor                           by the applicant,
     appropriate in order to achieve the objective pursued,
     which is simply that of recruiting into the A/LA                  Ð order the Commission to pay interest at the rate of
     category of the Community civil service individuals                   10 % per annum on the capital sum found by the
     who have followed full university degree courses                      Court to be payable in accordance with the rate of
     certified by a diploma,                                               permanent partial incapacity determined pursuant to
                                                                           Articles 73 and 14 of the Staff Regulations, and on the
                                                                           capital sum of ECU 1 000 000, such interest to be
Ð Breach of the principle of legal certainty and of                        calculated from 1 August 1997 until payment in full of
     legitimate expectations,                                              that capital sum,
                                                                       Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of
Ð Breach of the right of access to the Community public                    the Commission of 1 August 1997 refusing the
     service.                                                              applicant's request of 11 May 1997,
                                                                       Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
The applicant further affirms that, in its judgment in Case
T-82/92 Manuel CorteÂs JimeÂnez v. Commission [1994] (2),
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Court of First Instance simply rejected the higher'
nature of the ingeniero teÂcnico' diploma without,
however, thereby expressly rejecting the full' nature of              The applicant, a former official who worked in the
that diploma.                                                          Berlaymont building in Brussels as an archivist from 1969
                                                                       to 1991, has contracted an occupational disease,
                                                                       asbestosis. On 11 February 1997 the appointing authority
The applicant also claims that the defendant has misused               decided to recognize the applicant as having a permanent
its power inasmuch as, in his view, the contested act forms            partial incapacity (PPI) rate of 5 %, equivalent to a capital
part of a staff selection policy intended to prevent access            sum of Bfrs 639 114.
by ingenieros teÂcnicos' to the A/LA category.
                                                                       The applicant maintains that, in view of the seriousness of
                                                                       that mortal illness and the physical consequences resulting
(1) Council Directive of 21 December 1988 on a general system
                                                                       from it, which will totally reduce his quality of life, he
    for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
    completion of professional education and training of at least      should be awarded a PPI percentage reflecting with the
    three years' duration (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16).                 seriousness of his illness. According to the applicant, the
(2) ECR II-237.                                                        Commission is guilty of having required him to work in a
                                                                       building in which, between 1967 and 1969, the workers
                                                                       were exposed to the flaking' of 4 000 tonnes of asbestos
                                                                       on the south and west walls, despite the fact that:


title: Case C-456/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen — Germany) — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 32 and 33 — Recognition of judgments — Concept of ‘judgment’ — Effects of a judgment on international jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen — Germany) — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH
   (Case C-456/11) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 32 and 33 - Recognition of judgments - Concept of ‘judgment’ - Effects of a judgment on international jurisdiction - Jurisdiction clause)
   2013/C 9/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Bremen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG

      Defendant: Samskip GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Bremen — Interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Recognition of judgments issued in a Member State — Purely procedural judgment (‘Prozeßurteil’) — Judgment concerning the interpretation of a clause allocating jurisdiction, by which the national court declares that it lacks jurisdiction in holding that the court of a third State has jurisdiction — Extent of recognition

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it also covers a judgment by which the court of a Member State declines jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause, irrespective of how that judgment is categorised under the law of another Member State.

               2.

               Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the court before which recognition is sought of a judgment by which a court of another Member State has declined jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause is bound by the finding — made in the grounds of a judgment, which has since become final, declaring the action inadmissible — regarding the validity of that clause.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case T-98/11 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2011 by AG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case F-25/10 AG v Parliament

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/15

         Appeal brought on 17 February 2011 by AG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case F-25/10 AG v Parliament
   (Case T-98/11 P)
   2011/C 120/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: AG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare the present appeal admissible;

               —

               Annul the order made by the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 December 2010 in Case F-25/10;

               —

               Grant the forms of order sought as regards annulment and indemnity submitted by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises a single plea in law, alleging distortion of the evidence adduced before the Judge at first instance, breach of the principle of legal certainty and infringement of the right to an effective remedy, in that:

               —

               there is no document in the file which enables the CST to take the view that the appellant lacked diligence in not having her post forwarded during her end-of-year holidays, during which period the post official came to her home to deliver to her the registered letter from the Parliament with its response to her claim;

               —

               the CST did not make clear what was to be understood by ‘extended’ holidays;

               —

               the CST took the view that the non-delivery notice which the appellant found in her letterbox on her return from holiday obviously related to the registered letter from the Parliament with its response to her claim.


title: Joined Cases C-58/13 and C-59/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense –Italy) — Angelo Alberto Torresi (C-58/13), Pierfrancesco Torresi (C-59/13) v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Access to the profession of lawyer — Possibility of refusing registration in the Bar Council register to nationals of a Member State who have obtained their professional legal qualification in another Member State — Abuse of rights)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense –Italy) — Angelo Alberto Torresi (C-58/13), Pierfrancesco Torresi (C-59/13) v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata
   (Joined Cases C-58/13 and C-59/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Access to the profession of lawyer - Possibility of refusing registration in the Bar Council register to nationals of a Member State who have obtained their professional legal qualification in another Member State - Abuse of rights))
   2014/C 315/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio Nazionale Forense

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Angelo Alberto Torresi (C-58/13), Pierfrancesco Torresi (C-59/13)

      Defendant: Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as meaning that no abuse can be identified in the fact that a national of a Member State who after successfully obtaining a university degree travels to another Member State in order to acquire there the professional qualification of lawyer and returns to the Member State of which he is a national in order to practise there the profession of lawyer under the professional title obtained in the Member State where that professional qualification was acquired;

               2.

               Examination of the second question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 3 of Directive 98/5.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-288/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG, Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV) (Appeal — State aids — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Economic activity — Airport infrastructure construction — Runway)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/5

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG, Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV)
   (Case C-288/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aids - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Economic activity - Airport infrastructure construction - Runway)
   2013/C 46/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG, Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller and J. Dammann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as agents), Federal Republic of Germany, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV) (represented by: L. Giesberts and G. Kleve, Rechtsanwälte)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission and Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle v Commission, by which the General Court partially dismissed an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig-Halle Airport (OJ 2008 L 346, p. 31) — Applicability of the provisions of European Union law on State aid to aid granted for the construction of airport infrastructure — Concept of ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU — Temporal application of the Commission’s guidelines.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV) to bear its own costs

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-668/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Cooperation — Obligation to state reasons — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/18

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission
   (Case C-668/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Obligation to state reasons - Mitigating circumstances)
   2013/C 344/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola and A. Vide, Abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, and J. Bourke, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-38/05 Agroexpansion v Commission, by which the General Court rejected, in part, an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B2 — Raw tobacco — Spain)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Alliance One International, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case C-557/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/35/EC — Ship-source pollution and introduction of penalties for infringements — Failure to transpose)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-557/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/35/EC - Ship-source pollution and introduction of penalties for infringements - Failure to transpose)
   2009/C 205/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and A. A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-39/10: Action brought on 22 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/42

         Action brought on 22 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-39/10)
   2010/C 63/66
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by R. Lyal and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Estonia is in breach of its obligations under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, since it has not provided in its legislation for granting exemption from income tax on individuals to non-residents whose total income is so small that an exemption from income tax would apply to them if they were resident taxpayers;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission received a complaint from a national of the Republic of Estonia resident in the Republic of Finland about the levying of income tax on his pension originating from Estonia. He complained that the Republic of Estonia did not apply, in relation to his pension, the usual income-tax-free threshold allowed to residents, nor the supplementary income-tax-fee threshold allowed to resident pensioners.
   The complainant receives half his income in the form of a pension from the Republic of Estonia and the other half as a pension from the Republic of Finland. His income is very small, and if he received all his income from one and the same Member State, it would be taxed in a lower amount or not taxed at all.
   It follows from consistent case-law of the Court of Justice that, while direct taxation is within the jurisdiction of the Member States, they must exercise that jurisdiction in harmony with European Union law and avoid discrimination on grounds of nationality.
   The fact that a non-resident taxpayer who has made use of freedom of movement for workers is not allowed a tax exemption which is available to resident taxpayers constitutes different treatment of non-residents and residents, as well as a restriction of freedom of movement across borders.
   May, and to what extent may, such different treatment be regarded as appropriate and justified as a result of the difference of residence?
   In a situation in which the taxpayer’s worldwide income is so low that the source State would not tax the income at all or would tax it in a smaller amount if a resident were concerned, the Commission considers that Member States must, when taxing non-resident individuals, take their personal and family circumstances into account to the extent that their equal treatment with resident taxpayers is ensured.
   If the legislation of a Member State lays down a threshold below which it is considered that the taxpayer does not have the resources to finance public expenditure, there is no basis for differentiating between taxpayers whose income is below the defined threshold according to their residence.
   The Commission takes the view that the provisions of the income tax law of the Republic of Estonia which do not make it possible to grant exemption from income tax on individuals to non-residents who receive half of their income from Estonia and the other half from some other Member State, and whose total income is so small that exemption from income tax would apply to them if they were resident taxpayers, are contrary to Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.


title: Case C-280/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2006 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente Tabacchi Italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. Philip Morris International Management SA

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2006 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente Tabacchi Italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. Philip Morris International Management SA
   (Case C-280/06)
   (2006/C 224/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente Tabacchi Italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. Philip Morris International Management SA
   Questions referred

               1.

               What, in accordance with Article 87 et seq. of the Treaty and with the general principles of Community law, is the criterion to be adopted in determining the undertaking on which a penalty is to be imposed for contravention of the rules in the sphere of competition when, in connection with conduct penalised as a whole, the last part of those actions was carried out by an undertaking having succeeded the original undertaking in the economic sphere concerned whenever the original body, while still in existence, no longer operates as a commercial undertaking, or at least not in the economic sector affected by the penalty?

               2.

               Does it fall to the national authority responsible for the application of ‘anti-trust’ rules, when determining the person to be penalised, to assess at its own discretion whether circumstances exist which warrant the attribution to the economic successor of responsibility for contraventions of the competition rules committed by the legal person which it has succeeded, even when that latter has not ceased to exist at the date of the decision, so that the effectiveness of the competition rules is not compromised by alterations made to the legal form of the undertakings?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 1999 in Case T-214/96 Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Action for compensation - Prelitigation procedure contrary to the terms of the Staff Regulations - Admissibility)

text:
28.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 246/25
2. The applications in the two actions for career reclassification are       (Italy), Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, established in Bergamo,
     dismissed as inadmissible;                                              Ferriera Lamifer SpA, established in Travagliato (Italy), rep-
                                                                             resented by Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta, both of the Rome
3. In Case T-112/96, the action is dismissed;                                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                             Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume, Nuova
4. In Case T-115/96, the Commission’s decision of 1 December                 Sidercamuna SpA, established in Berzo Inferiore (Italy), rep-
     1995 is annulled in so far as it rejects the applicant’s alternative    resented by Enrico A. Raffaelli, of the Milan Bar, Ivo Van Bael,
     application that he be granted the benefit of the temporary             of the Brussels Bar and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Rome Bar,
     postings system;                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                             Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: Paul Nemitz, Enrico Altieri, Laura
5. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the monthly                Pignataro and Massimo Moretto) — application for annulment
     payments of differential allowance referred to in Article 7(2) of       of Commission Decision 96/678/ECSC of 30 July 1996
     the Staff Regulations to which he would have been entitled if his       concerning certain aid proposed by Italy as part of a pro-
     application for a temporary posting had been accepted, together         gramme for the restructuring of its private steel industry and
     with interest for delay at the rate of 4.5 % per annum calculated       Commission Decision 97/258/ECSC of 18 December 1996
     from the dates on which those payments should have been made,           concerning aid closures envisaged by Italy as part of the
     as from 30 December 1995 and until full settlement;                     restructuring of its private steel industry (OJ 1996 L 316, p.
                                                                             24 and OJ 1997 L 102, p. 42 respectively) — the Court (Third
6. The remainder of the action in Case T-115/96 is dismissed;                Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: M. Jaeger,
                                                                             President, and K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, J. Azizi and P. Mengozzi,
7. In Case T-112/96, each party is ordered to bear its own costs,            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May
     including those relating to the interim proceedings. Union              1999, in which it:
     Syndicale — Brussels is ordered to pay its own costs;
                                                                             1. Dismisses the applications;
8. In Case T-115/96, the Commission is ordered to pay its own
     costs and two-thirds of those incurred by the applicant, who is         2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and
     ordered to pay the remaining third. Union Syndicale — Brussels               severally to pay those of the Commission.
     is ordered to pay its own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997 and C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996 and C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 19 May 1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             in Case T-214/96 Bernard Connolly v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                           of 12 May 1999
                                                                             (Officials — Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations —
in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,                      Action for compensation — Prelitigation procedure contrary
T-122/97 and T-130/97: Moccia Irme SpA and Others v                              to the terms of the Staff Regulations — Admissibility)
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/51)
(Action for annulment — State aid — ECSC Treaty — Fifth
Steel Aid Code — Requirement of regular production within                                         (Language of the case: French)
   the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Fifth Steel Aid Code)
                                                                             In Case T-214/96 Bernard Connolly, a former official of
                           (1999/C 246/50)                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing at Ever-
                                                                             berg (Belgium), represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul
                                                                             Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                                                                             Fort Rheinsheim v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall), application for
In Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,                      compensation for the material and non-material damage which
T-122/97 and T-130/97: Moccia Irme SpA, established in                       the applicant considers himself to have suffered as a result of
Naples (Italy), represented by Emilio Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini            the publication in the press of several pieces of information
and Andrea Bandini, all of the Rome Bar, with an address for                 and statements concerning him, the Court of First Instance
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A                   (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and J.
Avenue Guillaume, Prolafer, established in Bergamo (Italy),                  Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, established in Montecompatri               judgment on 19 May 1999 in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 11 March 1999
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                 in Case T-257/97: Hans C. Herold v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Official — Partial permanent invalidity — Aggravation of
                                                                          injuries — Action for annulment — Action for damages —
                                                                          Admissibility — Principle of equal treatment — Duty to
                                                                          have regard for the welfare and interests of officials — Lack
                                                                                of diligence)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          (1999/C 246/53)
                          of 4 May 1999
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-161/97: Massimo Marzola v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-257/97: Hans C. Herold, an official of the Com-
(Officials — Transfer of pension rights — Time-limit for                  mission of the European Communities, represented by Bernd
submitting a request — Acquired knowledge — Admissi-                      Potthast, Hans-Josef Rüber and Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwälte,
bility — Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of             Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        officials — Provision of a statement of reasons)                  Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Christine
                                                                          Berardis-Kayser and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application, first,
                         (1999/C 246/52)                                  for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 20
                                                                          November 1996 rejecting the applicant’s request for an
                                                                          increase in the capital sum paid by way of compensation for
                    (Language of the case: French)                        partial permanent invalidity and, second, for the payment of
                                                                          damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                          composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
In Case T-161/97: Massimo Marzola, an official of the                     Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-                 judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it:
sels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Thierry Demaseure,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v            1. Orders the Commissions to pay to the applicant a sum
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi                      corresponding to the interest accrued on the compensation received
Valsesia and Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for                   by him on 25 April 1996 (BEF 1 320 157), covering a period
annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting as out of                     of twenty months, calculated at the rate of 5 % per annum,
time the request submitted by the applicant for the transfer to                together with default interest on that sum, likewise calculated at
the Community scheme of the pension rights acquired by him                     the rate of 5 % per annum, for the period from 25 April 1996
in a private pension scheme in the United States of America                    until actual payment of that sum to the applicant;
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.
Vesterdorf, President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May 1999, in                   2. For the rest, dismisses the application;
which it:
1. Dismisses the application;                                             3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of
                                                                               the costs of the applicant.
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-117/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/35/EEC - Directive 92/40/EEC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
23.11.96            I EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 354/9
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       26 September 1996 in which it:
                     of 26 September 1996
in Case C-79/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                       1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
                                                                            and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose a                     Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989
                              directive)                                    concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
                           ( 96/C 354/ 16 )                                 for the workplace, Council Directive 89/6S5/EEC of
                                                                            30 November 1 989 concerning the minimum safety and
                                                                            health requirements for the use of work equipment by
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                              workers at work, Council Directive 89/65 6/EEC of
                                                                            30 November 1989 on the minimum health and safety
                                                                            requirements for the use by workers of personal
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                protective equipment at the workplace, Council
         published in the European Court Reports)                           Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1 990 on the minimum
                                                                            health and safety requirements for the manual handling
In Case C-79/95 : Commission of the European                                of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury
Communities ( Agent: Blanca Rodriguez Galindo ) v.                          to workers, Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez                   1 990 on the minimum safety and health requirements
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for a declaration that,               for work with display screen equipment and Council
by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative                Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the
provisions necessary to comply with :                                       protection of workers from the risks related to
                                                                            exposure to carcinogens at work, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 ( 1 ) of
— Council Directive 89/391 /EEC of 12 June 1989 on the                      Directives 89/654/EEC, 89/655/EEC and 89/656/EEC,
    introduction of measures to encourage improvements in                   Article 9 (1 ) of Directive 90/269/EEC, Article 11 ( 1 ) of
    the health and safety of workers at work ( OJ No L 183 ,                Directive 90/270/EEC and Article 19 ( 1 ) of Directive
    1989 , p. 1 );                                                          90/394/EEC;
— Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989
                                                                       2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
    concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
    for the workplace ( OJ No L 393 , 1989 , p. 1 );
                                                                       (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
— Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989
    concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
    for the use of work equipment by workers at work ( OJ
    No L 393 , 1989 , p. 13 );
— Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on
    the minimum health and safety requirements for the use                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    by workers of personal protective equipment at the                                          ( Sixth Chamber )
    workplace ( OJ No L 393 , 1989 , p. 18 );
                                                                                of 26 September 1996
— Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the                   in Case C-l 17/95 : Commission of the European
    minimum health and safety requirements for the manual                            Communities v. Italian Republic (')
    handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
    back injury to workers ( OJ No L 156 , 1990, p. 9 );               Directive 92/35/FEC — Directive 92/40/EEC — Failure to
                                                                                transpose within the period prescribed)
— Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the                                               ( 96/C 354/ 17 )
    minimum safety and health requirements for work with
    display screen equipment ( OJ No L 156 , 1990 , p. 14 );                            (Language of the case: Italian)
    and
 — Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    protection of workers from the risks related to exposure                     published in the European Court Reports)
    to carcinogens at work ( OJ No L 196 , 1990 , p. 1 ),
                                                                       In Case C-l 17/95 : Commission of the European
 the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations              Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian Republic
 under those Directives, the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                   ( Agent: Umberto Leanza , assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) —
 composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,                application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
 G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur )         within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23 . 11 . 96
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council            von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control              a judgment on 26 September 1996 , in which it rules :
rules and measures to combat African horse sickness ( OJ No
L 157, 1992, p. 19 ) and Council Directive 92/40/EEC of               1 . Article 3 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May
 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the                        1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
control of avian influenza ( OJ No L 167, 1992, p. 1 ), the                substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the            the Community is to be interpreted as making any
EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                      discharge of cadmium, irrespective of the date on which
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn                 the plant from which it comes commenced operation,
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,                       subject to the issue of a prior authorization.
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
26 September 1996 , in which it:                                      2 . In the absence of full transposition by a Member State
                                                                           within the time allowed of Directive 76/464/EEC, and
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the period                  therefore of Article 3 thereof, and of Council Directive
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative                   83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                 quality objectives for cadmium discharges, a public
     92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control rules                  authority of that State may not rely on that Article 3
     and measures to combat African horse sickness and                     against an individual.
     Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992
     introducing Community measures for the control of                3 . There is no method of procedure in Community law
     avian influenza, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil            allowing the national court to eliminate national
     its obligations under Articles 20 and 22, respectively, of            provisions contrary to a provision of a Directive which
     those Directives;                                                     has not been transposed where that provision may not
                                                                           be relied upon before the national court.
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 October 1996
                       (Fourth Chamber )
                     of 26 September 1996                             in Case C-41 /94 : Federal Republic of Germany v.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
in Case C-l 68/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza ): Criminal proceedings          (Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — Special premium for
                   against Luciano Arcaro (')                             beef and veal producers — Expenditure disallowed)
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/ 19 )
(Cadmium discharges — Interpretation of Council
Directives 76/464/EEC and 83/513/EEC — Direct effect
— Possibility for a Directive to be relied on against an                             (Language of the case : German)
                             individual)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          ( 96/C 354/18 )                                      published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      In Case C-41 /94 : Federal Republic of Germany (Agents :
                                                                      Ernst Roder and Bernd Kloke ) v. Commission of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          European Communities ( Agent: Ulrich Wolker, assisted by
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Georg M. Berrisch and Hans-Jiirgen Rabe ) — application
                                                                      for the annulment of Commission Decision 93/659/EC of
In Case C- 168/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177          25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale [District             presented by the Member States in respect of the
Magistrate's Court], Vicenza, ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling      expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court                 Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee
against Luciano Arcaro — on the interpretation of Council             Section ( OJ No L 301 , 1993 , p. 13 ), to the extent to which it
Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused                did not charge to the EAGGF the sum of DM 7 518 141
by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic           disbursed by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to
environment of the Community ( OJ No L 129, 1976 , p. 23 )            the Community scheme providing for a special premium for
and Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983                 beef and veal producers — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium                    composed of C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), President of the
discharges ( OJ No L 291 , 1983 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fourth         Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges,
Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                Advocate-General : A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. A. Riihl ,
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                     Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 3 October
Ragnemalm, Judges ; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; H.                1996 , in which it:


title: Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche Post AG against the judgment delivered on 16 September by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 between International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by, in cases T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste (Case C-428/98 P)

text:
C 48/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
    providing, in particular, that certain documents must          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
    be issued or certified in another Member State, the
    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
    under Directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC.                        so far as it annuls the Commission's decision of 6 April
                                                                       1995;
Ð The provisions on students' resources                            Ð order the applicant to bear Deutsche Post AG's costs.
                                                                   Deutsche Post AG continues to seek the form of order as
                                                                   that sought at first instance, i.e.
    The Commission considers that by requiring students,
    who are citizens of other Member States, and
    members of their family to guarantee to the Italian            Ð to dismiss the IECC's application;
    authorities that they have resources of a certain
    amount and, as regards the means to be used for that           Ð to order the IECC to pay the costs of the proceedings
    purpose, by not clearly leaving students a choice                  including Deutsche Post AG's costs.
    between making a declaration or such alternative
    means as are at least equivalent, and by not allowing          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    the declaration to be used where the student is
    accompanied by members of his family, the Italian
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            The judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling the
    Directive 93/96/EEC.                                           Commission's decision of 6 April 1995 in so far as it
                                                                   concerns commercial physical ABA remail is based on an
                                                                   error of law. The Court of First Instance has infringed
(1) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26.                                    Community law (Article 86 EC Treaty) by finding in
(2) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 28.                                    paragraph 105 of its judgment that interceptions of
(3) OJ L 317, 18.12.1993, p. 59.                                   commercial ABA remail constitute an abuse within the
                                                                   meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 22.
                                                                   (2) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995, p. 17.
Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche Post
AG against the judgment delivered on 16 September by
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
of First Instance of the European Communities in cases             Dublin, by order of that court of 23 July 1998, in the case
T-133/95 (1) and T-204/95 (2) between International                of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission              Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture, Food and
of the European Communities, supported by, in cases                                            Forestry
T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The                                    (Case C-436/98)
         Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste                                       (1999/C 48/20)
                      (Case C-428/98 P)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (1999/C 48/19)
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                   Dublin, of 23 July 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                   Registry on 3 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                   the case of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September           International Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture,
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                Food and Forestry, on the following questions:
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 between International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission              1.    Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 (1) and
of the European Communities, supported by, in case                       in particular Article 1 thereof, to be construed as
T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great                       meaning that trimmings of less than 100 grams,
Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and                       when rolled up inside a cut of plate and flank from
The Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste, was                     fresh or chilled hind quarters of adult male cattle,
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      which rolled up cut is then wrapped, do or do not
Communities on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche                              qualify for Special Export Refunds pursuant to the
Post AG, Heinrich-von-Stephan-Straûe 1, D-53175 Bonn,                    said Regulation?
represented by Dirk Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   2.    Is Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 and in particular
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11, Rue Goethe.                           Article 1 thereof, to be construed as meaning that


title: Case C-460/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 October 2007 — Sandra Puffer v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 October 2007 — Sandra Puffer v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz
   (Case C-460/07)
   (2007/C 315/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sandra Puffer

      Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (‘the Sixth Directive’), in particular Article 17 thereof, infringe fundamental rights under Community law (the Community-law principle of equal treatment) because it has the effect of enabling persons liable to pay value added tax (VAT) to acquire ownership of residential properties for their own private residential purposes (consumption) for approximately 5 % less than other EU citizens, with the final value of that advantage rising indefinitely in line with the level of acquisition and construction costs of the residential property in question? Does such an infringement arise also as a result of the fact that persons liable to pay VAT can acquire ownership of residential properties used for their own private residential purposes — where such properties are used, even minimally, in connection with their business — for approximately 5 % less than other taxable persons who do not use their private dwellings, even minimally, in connection with their business?

               2.

               Does national legislation implementing the Sixth Directive, in particular Article 17 thereof, infringe Article 87 EC because, while the legislation does allow persons liable to pay VAT who carry out taxable transactions the advantage referred to in Question 1 in respect of properties which they use for private residential purposes, that advantage is not available to taxable persons whose transactions are exempt?

               3.

               Does Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive continue to have effect if the national legislature amends a national provision for the exclusion of deductions (in this case, Paragraph 12(2)(1) of the Austrian Umsatzsteuergesetz (UStG) (Law on Turnover Tax) 1994), which is based on Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive, with the express intention of retaining that exclusion of deductions, and the Austrian UStG would indeed result in the retention of an exclusion of deductions, but — owing to an error in the interpretation of Community law (in this case Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive) which was only subsequently identified — the national legislature introduced a provision which, viewed in isolation, would, according to Community law (Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive as interpreted in Case C-269/00 Seeling [2003] ECR I-4101), allow a deduction to be made?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative:
               Could the effect of an exclusion of deductions (Paragraph 12(2)(2)(a) of the UStG 1994) which is based on the ‘standstill clause’ (Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive) be restricted if the national legislature amends one of two overlapping national provisions excluding deductions (Paragraph 12(2)(2)(a) of the UStG 1994 and Paragraph 12(2)(1) of the UStG 1994) and subsequently does not proceed further because it finds that it has erred in law?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2001 in Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97, T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from Turkey — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol — Compensatory levy — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Remission of import duty not justified — Rights of the defence)

text:
15.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/5
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Gerven and I. Bernaerts, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                         and Northern Ireland, (Agents: in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97,
                         of 10 May 2001                                  T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-279/97,
                                                                         T-280/97 and T-293/97, M. Ewing, R.V. Magrill and D. Wyatt
                                                                         QC, and, in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97, D. Cooper and
in Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97,                D. Wyatt) Federal Republic of Germany, in Cases T-186/97,
T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97,                      T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, (Agents: initially
T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG and                         E. Röder and C.-D. Quassowski and subsequently W.D. Plessing
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                    and C.-D. Quassowski), French Republic, in Cases T-186/97,
                                                                         T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97 and T-210/97, T-211/97
                                                                         and T-216/97 to T-218/97, (Agents: initially K. Rispal-
(Action for annulment — Importation of television sets                   Bellanger, G. Mignot and F. Pascal and subsequently K. Rispal-
from Turkey — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement —                         Bellanger and C. Vasak), against Commission of the European
Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol — Compensatory levy              Communities (Agents: in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97
— Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 —                         to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97 and T-293/97 initially
Remission of import duty not justified — Rights of the                   R.B. Wainwright and K. Schreyer and subsequently G. zur
                              defence)                                   Hausen, in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97 initially M. Nolin and
                                                                         A. Barav and subsequently R. Tricot and A. Barav, in Cases
                                                                         T-279/97 and T-280/97 R.B. Wainwright and R. Tricot, and
                                                                         in Case T-147/99 R. Tricot, and J. Stuyck), — application in
                         (2001/C 259/05)                                 Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97,
                                                                         T-211/97, T-279/97, T-280/97 and T-293/97 for annulment
                                                                         of the decisions of the Commission of 19 February, 25 March
                                                                         and 5 June 1997 finding that the remission of import duties is
     (Language of the case: German, English, French and Dutch)           not justified, and in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97 and T-147/99
                                                                         for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 24 April
                                                                         1997 and 26 March 1999 finding that import duties must be
In Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97,                recovered and that the remission of those duties is not justified
T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97,                      — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG, established                K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; P. de
in Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,          Bandt, Legal secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Crown                on 10 May 2001, in which it:
Europe GmbH, established in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, rep-
resented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, Profex Electronic Verwaltungsge-
sellschaft mbH, established in Tiefenbach, Germany, represent-
                                                                         1.   Annuls Decisions REM 14/96, REM 15/96, REM 16/96,
ed initially by G. Sobotta and subsequently by E.O. Rau,
                                                                              REM 17/96, REM 18/96, REM 19/96 and REM 20/96 of
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Horten
                                                                              19 February 1997 and Decision REM 21/96 of 25 March
AG, established in Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by D. Ehle
                                                                              1997 addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany concerning
and V. Schiller, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                              applications for the remission of import duties.
Luxembourg, Dr. Seufert GmbH, established in Karlsruhe,
Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, Grundig AG, established
in Fürth, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Hertie               2.   Annuls Decisions REC 7/96, REC 8/96 and REC 9/96 of
Waren- und Kaufhaus GmbH, established in Frankfurt am                         24 April 1997 addressed to the French Republic concerning
Main, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,                        applications for non-recovery and remission of import duties.
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Lema SA,
established in Gennevilliers, France, represented by F. Goguel,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Masco SA,
formerly Seiga SA (High Tech Industries), established in Thiais,
                                                                         3.   Annuls Decisions REM 26/96 and REM 27/96 of 5 June
France, represented by F. Goguel, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                              1996 addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning
service in Luxembourg, DFDS Transport BV, established in
                                                                              applications for remission of import duties.
Venlo, Netherlands, represented by C. Grisart, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, Wilson Holland BV,
established in Hoogvliet Rotterdam, Netherlands, represented
by C. Grisart, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, Elta GmbH, established in Dreieich-Sprendlingen, Ger-             4.   Annuls Decision REC 3/98 of 26 March 1999 addressed to
many, represented by G. Breit and A. Breit, lawyers, Miller NV,               the Kingdom of Belgium concerning an application for non-
established in Willebroek, Belgium, represented by Y. Van                     recovery and remission.
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            15.9.2001
5.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                    —     the remainder of the application is dismissed;
6.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                    —     the parties shall bear their own costs, including those
      Ireland, the French Republic and the Federal Republic of                         relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
      Germany to bear their own costs.
                                                                           3.    In Case T-241/99:
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.97, C 378 of 20.12.97, C 94 of 28.3.98 and
    C 246 of 28.8.99.                                                            —     the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant
                                                                                EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for non-material
                                                                                damage;
                                                                                —     the remainder of the application is dismissed;
                                                                                —     the Commission shall, in addition to bearing its own
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                            costs, pay one-quarter of the applicant’s costs.
                            of 3 July 2001
                                                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.98 and C 6 of 8.1.98.
in Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99: E v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Temporary agent — Disciplinary action —
Suspension — Disciplinary measure — Termination without
notice of the contract — Period prescribed by the third
paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— Disregarded — Consequences — Action for annulment
             and damages — No need to adjudicate)                                                     of 16 May 2001
                           (2001/C 259/06)                                 in Case T-68/99 Toditec NV v Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                                Counterclaim)
In Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/98: E, temporary member
of staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in T.I. (Italy), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmen-                                  (2001/C 259/07)
tier and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application, in                                    (Language of the case: English)
Case T-24/98, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 12 November 1997 to continue to keep the
applicant on suspension from duties and, secondly, seeking an              In Case T-68/99 Toditec NV, established in Antwerp (Belgium),
order requiring the Community to make good the damage                      represented by E. Ballon and H. Dubois, avocats, with an
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision           address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
and, in Case T-241/99, an application, first, for annulment of             European Communities (Agents: E. de March, M. Shotter and
the decision of the Commission of 22 December 1998                         J. Stuyck) — application pursuant to an arbitration clause
imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of termin-              within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now
ation without notice of the temporary-agent contract and,                  Article 238 EC) for the Commission to be required to pay the
secondly, seeking an order requiring the Community to make                 sum of ECU 74 967, plus interest at the rate of 7 % (the legal
good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result            rate applicable in Belgium) as from 5 June 1998, and
of that decision and of the disciplinary procedure — the Court             counterclaim by the Commission for the applicant to be
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,               required to pay it the sum of EUR 54 486, plus interest at the
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,          rate of 7 % as from 31 January 1999 — the Court of First
gave a judgment on 13 July 2001, the operative part of which               Instance, composed of (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); J. Palacio
is as follows:                                                             González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
                                                                           ment on 16 May 2001, in which it:
1.    Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99 are joined for the purposes of
      the judgment.                                                        1.    Allows the applicant’s claim in so far as it seeks reimbursement
                                                                                of expenditure on consumables amounting to EUR 4 642.
2.    In Case T-24/98:
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.
      —     there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for
            annulment;                                                     3.    Allows the Commission’s counterclaim.


title: Case T-178/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — W&O medical esthetics v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/58

         Action brought on 21 March 2017 — W&O medical esthetics v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)
   (Case T-178/17)
   (2017/C 144/79)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: W&O medical esthetics GmbH (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by: A. Finkentey, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘HYALSTYLE’ — EU trade mark No 11 645 471

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 in Case R 872/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.