17.7.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 204/35
2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Case C-320/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (1999/C 204/74)
submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
Article 14(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.               By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-320/97: Commission of the
(1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 75.                                             European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(2) See this OJ, p. 28.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-330/98 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-5/99 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/71)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/75)
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-330/98 (reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Wellcome Foun-             from the register of Case C-5/99 (reference for a preliminary
dation Ltd v Nycomed Austria GmbH.                                    ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg): Business registry
                                                                      case relating to Firma Wiesenhof Geflügelspezialitäten, a
                                                                      branch of Lohmann & Co. AG.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 86 of 27.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-245/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/72)                                                      (1999/C 204/76)
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-186/97: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-245/98: Commission of the European
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-398/96 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case     C-192/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/77)
                         (1999/C 204/73)
                                                                      By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Second                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities           the register of Case C-398/96 (reference for a preliminary
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-192/97:           ruling from Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio):
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic             Associazione Produttori Vitivinicoli della Provincia di Treviso
of Germany.                                                           and Others v Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e
                                                                      Forestali (Ministero per le Politche Agricole).
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.


title: Case C-528/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 October 2015 — Policie ČR v Salah Al Chodor and Others

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 October 2015 — Policie ČR v Salah Al Chodor and Others
   (Case C-528/15)
   (2016/C 016/20)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Policie České republiky, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

      Other parties: Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor

      Question referred

   Does the sole fact that a law has not defined objective criteria for assessment of a significant risk that a foreign national may abscond (Article 2(n) of Regulation No 604/2013 (1)) render detention under Article 28(2) of that regulation inapplicable?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.


title: Case T-297/00: Action brought on 18 September 2000 by the company Claude-Anne de Solène against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 355/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.12.2000
Action brought on 18 September 2000 by the company                       Finally, the applicant bases its action, in the alternative, on the
Claude-Anne de Solène against the Council of the Euro-                   objective responsibility of the Community for the unequal
pean Union and the Commission of the European Com-                       discharge of public burdens.
                             munities
                        (Case T-297/00)
                        (2000/C 355/67)                                  Action brought on 19 September 2000 by Gestevisión
                                                                         Telecinco against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-299/00)
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                                        (2000/C 355/68)
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 18 September 2000 by Claude-Anne de Solène, a company                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
having its registered office in Houplines (France), represented
by Claude Lazarus and Florent Prunet, of the Paris Bar.                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 19 September 2000 by Gestevisión
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Telecinco, whose registered office is at Madrid, represented by
                                                                         Santiago Muñoz Machado.
—     order the defendants to pay the applicant the sum of
      EUR 317 759 in respect of harm sustained, pursuant to              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Article 288 of the EC Treaty (together with such amount            —     annul Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May
      as the Court may award to take account of the period                     2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of
      between the date on which the action was brought and                     the EC Treaty, adopted in Case IV/32.150 — Eurovision,
      the date of judgment);                                                   published in OJ 2000 L 151, p. 18,
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                               ings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The decision being challenged in the present case is the
The applicant is a specialist manufacturer of cotton bed linen,          same as that in Case T-185/00 Métropole Télévision (M6) v
a significant proportion of which is marketed in the United              Commission (1).
States of America. Following the banana trade dispute between
the European Union and the United States, the United States              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
required importers of certain products, including the applicant,         forward in that case. In particular, the applicant alleges:
to pay additional customs duty of 100 % on the products
which they import into the United States.                                —     failure to comply with the judgment in Joined Cases
                                                                               T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93 Métropole
                                                                               Télévision and Others v Commission;
The action seeks compensation for the loss caused by those
trade sanctions applied by the United States.                            —     failure to state reasons and substantive errors in assessing
                                                                               the facts and the applicable legislation, so far as concerns
                                                                               definition of the relevant market, the indispensable nature
In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that by                 of the exclusivity clauses, the effects of public funding for
adopting and maintaining in force the Community import                         most of the EBU membership on its competitive position
arrangements for fresh bananas the defendants are in breach                    in the relevant market and the actual effect of the system
of the rules laid down by the GATT and the WTO. The                            of sub-licences as adopted 4;
Community institutions are required to observe those pro-
                                                                         —     infringement of each and every one of the four conditions
visions when drafting secondary Community legislation.                         laid down in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                         —     Misuse of powers.
Second, the applicant relies on an infringement of the prin-
ciples of equality, non-discrimination and protection of legit-
imate expectations, in that the defendants unlawfully failed to          (1) Not yet published.
have regard to the situation of the undertakings affected by the
sanctions.


title: Case C-373/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Protection of the ozone layer — Import of methyl bromide into the Union — Refusal to allocate import quotas for 2005 — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/7

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-373/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Protection of the ozone layer - Import of methyl bromide into the Union - Refusal to allocate import quotas for 2005 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)
   2009/C 141/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05 Mebrom v Commission by which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action for annulment of Decision A(05)4338-D/6176 of the Commission of 11 April 2005 refusing to allocate to the appellant quotas for the import of methyl bromide into the European Union in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Incorrect application of Community law — Inadequate reasoning — Breach of Article 220 EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mebrom NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case T-318/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Omar Mohamed Othman against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.3.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 68/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            on 17 December 2001 by Omar Mohamed Othman, represent-
                                                                           ed by Ms Fiona Lindsley of Birnberg Peirce & Partners, London
                                                                           (United Kingdom)
The applicant has since 1993 been the sole owner of Glucona
B.V., a company producing sodium gluconate. Glucona had
previously been a joint venture between the applicant and its              The applicant claims that the Court should:
then partner. Glucona was involved in a cartel concerning the
sale of sodium gluconate. The contested decision orders the                —     Annul Council Regulation 467/2001 and Commission
applicant to pay a fine in that regard.                                          Regulation 2062/2001.
In support of its claim, the applicant pleads, primarily,
failure to comply with essential procedural requirements. In
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
particular, it asserts that its rights of defence have been violated
and that an insufficient statement of reasons was given. Thus,
the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment on                   The applicant in the present case, a citizen of Jordan and
the statements made about the applicant by another party                   lawfully residing in the United Kingdom, challenges Council
involved in the investigation.
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 and Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001, amending, for the third
                                                                           time, Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting
The applicant further pleads infringement of Article 81(1) EC
                                                                           the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 (1). According to the
                                                                           strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds
applicant, the conduct of Glucona during the period from
                                                                           and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of
1987 and 1993 cannot be attributed to it. During that period
                                                                           Afghanistan and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (1).
the applicant’s partner in Glucona was responsible for sales
                                                                           The applicant is named in Regulation (EC) 2062/2001.
policy and the applicant itself had no information whatever in
that regard. It was not until 1993, when the applicant obtained
total control over Glucona, that it was made aware of the
                                                                           According to the applicant, the Council and the Commission
cartel and was thus placed in a position of responsibility
                                                                           have misused their powers conferred by Article 60 and 301
therefor.
                                                                           EC Treaty in adopting the Regulations in question. Further-
                                                                           more, the applicant contends that the Regulations violate his
                                                                           human rights, specifically Articles 3 and 8 of the European
Lastly, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of
                                                                           Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the applicant claims
proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission failed to take
                                                                           that the measures are disproportionate and in violation of the
account of the purely passive role played by the applicant in
                                                                           principle of subsidiarity.
the cartel until 1993.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 277, of 20.10.2001, p. 25.
(1) Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85
    and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
    p. 87).
                                                                           Action brought on 20 December 2001 by Roquette
                                                                           Frères S.A. against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Omar Mohamed                                                   Communities
Othman against the Council of the European Union and
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-322/01)
                          (Case T-318/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 68/25)
                           (2002/C 68/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                European Communities on 20 December 2001 by Roquette
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         Frères S.A., established at Lestrem (France), represented by
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities             Antoine Choffel and Olivier Prost, lawyers.


title: Case C-410/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Republic of Poland) — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union — Article 58 — Directive 2002/21/EC — Commission guidelines — No publication in the OJ in the language of a Member State — Enforceability)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Republic of Poland) — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
   (Case C-410/09) (1)

   (Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union - Article 58 - Directive 2002/21/EC - Commission guidelines - No publication in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of a Member State - Enforceability)
   2011/C 204/13
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

      In the presence of: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) — Publication of acts in the Official Journal of the European Union — Application by the regulatory authority of a Member State of Commission guidelines not published in the language of that State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as not precluding a national regulatory authority from referring to the Commission Guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services in a decision by which that national regulatory authority imposes certain regulatory obligations on an operator of electronic communications services, notwithstanding the fact that those guidelines have not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of the Member State in question, even though that language is an official language of the Union.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-101/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden)) — Skatteverket v A (Free movement of capital — Restriction on the movement of capital between the Member States and third countries — Tax on revenue from capital — Dividends received from a company established in an EEA Member State — Exemption — Dividends received from a company established in a third country — Exemption subject to the existence of a taxation convention providing for the exchange of information — Effectiveness of fiscal supervision)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden)) — Skatteverket v A
   (Case C-101/05) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Restriction on the movement of capital between the Member States and third countries - Tax on revenue from capital - Dividends received from a company established in an EEA Member State - Exemption - Dividends received from a company established in a third country - Exemption subject to the existence of a taxation convention providing for the exchange of information - Effectiveness of fiscal supervision)
   (2008/C 51/09)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Regeringsrätten
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: A
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Taxation, in the case of a taxable person resident in a Member State, in respect of dividends distributed by a company established in a non-member State — National legislation making the exemption of such dividends conditional upon the existence of a taxation convention with the non-member State that contains a provision on exchange of information
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 56 EC and 58 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State which provides that exemption from income tax in respect of dividends distributed in the form of shares in a subsidiary may be granted only if the company making the distribution is established in a State within the EEA or a State with which a taxation convention providing for the exchange of information has been concluded by the Member State imposing the tax, where that exemption is subject to conditions compliance with which can be verified by the competent authorities of that Member State only by obtaining information from the State of establishment of the distributing company.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-322/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 June 2011 — K

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 June 2011 — K
   (Case C-322/11)
   2011/C 252/46
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: K

      Other parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö, Valtiovarainministeriö

      Question referred

   Must Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a person with general liability to tax in Finland cannot deduct a loss incurred on the transfer of immovable property situated in France from gains on the transfer of shares taxable in Finland, whereas a person with general liability to tax in Finland may on certain conditions deduct a loss on the transfer of equivalent immovable property situated in Finland from gains on transfer?


title: Case C-542/10: Action brought on 17 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/25

         Action brought on 17 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-542/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/41
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Ł. Habiak and S. La Pergola, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 94(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2007/64 expired on 1 November 2009.

      (1)  OJ L 319, 5.12.2007, p. 1.


title: Case T-104/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Cegelec v Parliament

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Cegelec v Parliament
   (Case T-104/05) (1)

   (2008/C 197/67)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-313/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Germany) — Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Milk and milk products — Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 — New Zealand butter — Import licence procedures — Inward Monitoring Arrangement (IMA 1) certificate)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Germany) — Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-313/04) (1)

   (Milk and milk products - Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 - New Zealand butter - Import licence procedures - Inward Monitoring Arrangement (IMA 1) certificate)
   (2006/C 224/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk

      Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Intervening party: Fonterra (Logistics) Ltd
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Validity of Arts. 25(1) and 35(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (OJ 2001 L 341, p. 29) — Issue of an import certificate, for which an application may be submitted only in the United Kingdom, for New Zealand butter subject to the requirement of presentation of an Inward Monitoring Arrangement (IMA 1) certificate — Infringement of Arts. 28, 34(2) and 82, first paragraph, EC and of Arts 26(2) and 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 48) — Infringement of Art. XVII 1(a) of the GATT agreement — Infringement of Art. 1(3) of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 151)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 35(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas is invalid inasmuch as it provides that applications for import licences for New Zealand butter at reduced duty may be lodged solely with the competent authorities of the United Kingdom.

               2.

               Articles 25 and 32 of Regulation No 2535/2001, read in conjunction with Annexes III, IV and XII to that regulation, are invalid since they permit discrimination in the issue of import licences for New Zealand butter at reduced duty.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 25.9.2004.


title: Case T-619/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — CB v Commission

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/17

         Action brought on 2 December 2011 — CB v Commission
   (Case T-619/11)
   2012/C 39/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CB (Germany) (represented by: T. Hackemann and H. Horstkotte, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275, as corrected by C(2011) 2608, in the procedure on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’);

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision at least in so far as it does not provide for an exception to the recovery order, based on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in favour of undertakings like the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: the deduction of losses is not an aid granted through State resources
               With regard to this plea, the applicant submits that Paragraph 8c(1) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) infringes the principle of net profit or loss and the ability-to-pay principle and that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty merely prevents an unconstitutional intervention in the assets of taxable persons in cases covered by that provision. For that reason the applicant takes the view that the Community law definition of State aid is not fulfilled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity in the absence of an exception to the relevant reference system
               The applicant submits in that regard, that the relevant reference system is the general rules on the deduction of losses for corporations (Paragraph 10d of the German Law on Income Tax in conjunction with Paragraph 8(1) of the KStG and Paragraph 10a of the German Law on Trade Tax) and that Paragraph 8c of the KStG is merely an exception to that relevant reference system, which is in turn limited inter alia by the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity as there is no differentiation between economic operators who are in a comparable factual and legal position as regards the objective pursued
               The applicant submits in this connection inter alia that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty benefits all taxable undertakings and does not favour either particular areas of business and sectors or undertakings of a particular size.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity due to justification on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the tax system
               The applicant submits in that regard, that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty is based on tax system specific reasons which comply with principles of constitutional law, such as taxation according to ability to pay, the prevention of excessive taxation and respect for the principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Manifest errors of assessment on the basis of insufficient consideration of the position under German tax law
               The applicant submits in that regard, that the Commission failed to have regard to the provisions of German tax law on deduction of losses.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that there is a legitimate expectation under EU law
               The applicant submits in this connection that the tax privileges in question upon acquisitions of interests together with deductions of losses were raised by the Commission for the first time in a formal investigation procedure and that this is an extraordinary situation as the question whether a measure may constitute State aid could only arise on the basis of a legal simplification of a provision (Paragraph 8(4) of the KStG) which is undisputedly in conformity with the provisions on State aid. The relevance to State aid of that simplification of the law was not discernible to either the German legislature or undertakings which had been competently advised.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2002 in Case C-417/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt): Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch eG v Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt, (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules — Aid linked to set-aside of land — Declaration of area of set-aside — Failure to give notice, after submission of the aid application, of a decrease of the area of set-aside — Penalties)

text:
C 19/4                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 12 December 2002
                                                                                of 28 November 2002
in Case C-395/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Trento): Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA
                                                                             in Case C-417/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   v Ministero delle Finanze (1)
                                                                             the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt):
                                                                             Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch eG v Amt für Landwirtsch-
                                                                                aft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt, ( 1)
(Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 20 — Export to non-
member countries of products under duty-suspension
arrangements — Products having to be considered not to                       (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
have arrived at their destination by reason of the falsification             92 — Integrated administration and control system for
of the accompanying document — Place of the offence or                       certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules —
irregularity unknown — Determination of the Member State                     Aid linked to set-aside of land — Declaration of area of set-
               in which excise duty is chargeable)                           aside — Failure to give notice, after submission of the aid
                                                                             application, of a decrease of the area of set-aside — Penalties)
                           (2003/C 19/06)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/07)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-417/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-395/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   EC by the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt
EC by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a preliminary                      (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  before that court between Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch eG
Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, on            and Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt, on
the interpretation of Article 20(2) and (3) of Council Directive             the interpretation of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation
92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements                    (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,                      rules for applying the integrated administration and control
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,                      system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391,
p. 1), the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of                p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 229/
the Sixth Chamber, acting for the President, M. Wathelet,                    95 of 3 February 1995 (OJ 1995 L 27, p. 3) and 1648/95 of
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-                      6 July 1995 (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                    composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber,
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;                  acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December               P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                 judgment on 28 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
Article 20(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992             23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and          integrated administration and control system for certain Community
on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products is invalid          aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 229/
in so far as the period prescribed therein of four months for evidence       95 of 3 February 1995 and 1648/95 of 6 July 1995, must be
to be provided of the correctness of the transaction or of the place         interpreted as meaning that the penalties prescribed by that provision
where the irregularity or offence was actually committed may be relied       are not limited to cases in which the farmer has made erroneous or
on against a trader who has guaranteed the payment of the excise             false declarations at the time when the aid application was submitted
duties but was not in a position to know, at the appropriate time,           but that they also apply where the farmer has failed to notify the
that the duty-suspension arrangement had not been discharged.                competent authority of changes affecting the conditions governing
                                                                             grant of the aid.
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2004 in Case T-281/01: Hubert Huygens v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Reporting procedure — Delay in the drawing-up of the staff report — Reasonable period — Action for damages — Material and non-material damage — Promotions procedure — Implied rejection of the applicant's promotion — Action for annulment — Decision not to promote the applicant in the 2000 promotions procedure — Lack of statement of reasons — Decision to promote 54 officials in the 2000 promotions procedure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/15

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 6 July 2004
   in Case T-281/01: Hubert Huygens v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Reporting procedure - Delay in the drawing-up of the staff report - Reasonable period - Action for damages - Material and non-material damage - Promotions procedure - Implied rejection of the applicant's promotion - Action for annulment - Decision not to promote the applicant in the 2000 promotions procedure - Lack of statement of reasons - Decision to promote 54 officials in the 2000 promotions procedure - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 239/31)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-281/01, Hubert Huygens, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by S. Nyssens, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Curral and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the delay in the reporting procedure in respect of the applicant in the 1997/1999 procedure and, secondly, an application for the annulment of the implied rejection by the Commission of the claim for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of such delay, of the implied decision of the Commission refusing to promote the applicant to Grade B 1 in the 200 promotions procedure and of the decision of the commission to promote 54 officials to Grade B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure and, in any event, of the decision of the Director of the Office for official publications of the European Communities to promote 4 officials to Grade B 1 as part of the 2000 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Marins Ribeiro, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 500 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure which emerges from the publication in Administrative Notices No 31 of 6 April 2000 of the list of officials promoted to that grade;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case T-193/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/26

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council
   (Case T-193/16)
   (2016/C 232/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NG (Levbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Council

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;

               —

               order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;, is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or ‘act’ having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached.


title: Case F-9/09: Action brought on 6 February 2009 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/37

         Action brought on 6 February 2009 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission
   (Case F-9/09)
   (2009/C 82/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Isabel Vicente Carbajosa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the decision adopting and publishing the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 and the decisions relating to the correction of the pre-selection tests and the written tests and the awarding of marks for the oral tests.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decisions publishing and fixing the conditions for admission to and the conduct of the tests in competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08;

               —

               Annul the decisions of the selection boards for competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 relating to the correction of the pre-selection tests and the written tests and the awarding of marks for the oral tests;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-647/11: Action brought on 19 December 2011 — Asos v OHIM — Maier (ASOS)

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/11

         Action brought on 19 December 2011 — Asos v OHIM — Maier (ASOS)
   (Case T-647/11)
   2012/C 58/20
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Asos plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Roger Maier (San Pietro di Stabio, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2011 in case R 2215/2010-4;

               —

               Authorise registration of the application mark in respect of all of the goods and services covered by the specification of the application mark; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ASOS’, for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 4524997

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4580767 of the word mark ‘ASSOS’, for goods in classes 3, 12 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the opposition division

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal failed to properly consider co-existence and its effect on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, and erred in dismissing the relevance of the evidence of co-existence. Further, the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the conceptual meaning of the application mark and failed to take into account the correct conceptual meaning of the application mark in assessing likelihood of confusion based on a global assessment.


title: Case C-117/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber), by judgment of that court of 6 April 1999 in the case of Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (UNILET) and Gilles Le Bars against Association Comité Economique Régional Agricole Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)

text:
3.7.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 188/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    The French Republic considers that the Commission has
Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamb-                        infringed the principle of proportionality by applying a flat-rate
er), by judgment of that court of 6 April 1999 in the case                  correction of 2% on the basis that on-the-spot checks were of
of Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Légumes                         insufficient quality, even though the seriousness of the defects
Transformés (UNILET) and Gilles Le Bars against Associ-                     found in 1994 does not justify such a correction and it was
ation Comité Economique Régional Agricole Fruits et                         permissible for the Commission to carry out an assessment of
               Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)                                the actual risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                            European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. The
                                                                            French Government claims that the Court of Justice should
                         (Case C-117/99)                                    also annul Decision C(1999)209 final of 3 February 1999 on
                                                                            that point.
                         (1999/C 188/24)
                                                                            The French Government claims:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      — that Commission Decision 1999/187/EC should be
European Communities by judgment of the French Cour de                           annulled in so far as it concerns a flat-rate correction of
Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of                        567.7 million francs. (1)
6 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 9 April 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Union Nationale
Interprofessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (UNILET) and                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Gilles Le Bars against Association Comité Economique
Régional Agricole Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
on the following question:                                                  The flat-rate correction of 2%, on the ground of the alleged
                                                                            insufficiency of the on-the-spot checks carried out under the
                                                                            support system for producers of certain arable crops (Council
Is Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (1) of the                 Regulation 1765/92), (2) is based on an extrapolation of
Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the                    weaknesses reveaed by a mission in situ; it rests on too small
market in fruit and vegetables to be interpreted as meaning                 and insignificant a sample and infringes the principle of
that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(l) of that               proportionality. The French Government maintains that the
regulation, that is to say when it has made certain rules on                Commission has failed to carry out an assessment of the actual
production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organis-                   risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the European
ation binding on producers established in the district who do               Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
not belong to that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain
non-member producers from the payment of those fees, in
respect of a given product, in so far as the goods produced by              (1) Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the
                                                                                clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
them are intended for industrial processing, rather than for                    respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of
marketing fresh.                                                                the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ
                                                                                1999 L 61, p. 37).
                                                                            (2) OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12.
(1) OJ English Special Edition i 1972 (II), p. 437.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary by the Tribunal d’lnstance
                                                                            (District Court), Paris 7th, by judgment of that court of
                                                                            30 March 1999 in the case of Hewlett Packard BV v
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic                           Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-119/99)
                         (Case C-118/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/26)
                         (1999/C 188/25)                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of 30 March 1999 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Tribunal d’Instance, Paris 7ème, received at the Court Registry
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                on 12 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Communities on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic,                        Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits
represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Deputy Director for                 Indirects on the following question:
International Economic Law and Community Law at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Christina Vasak, Assistant                 Under the Common Customs Tariff, facsimile machines and
Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the same Ministry, acting as               printers do not fall under the same tariff heading. When a
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    single machine is designed to perform several functions, the
French Embassy, 8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                     tariff heading is determined according to the principal function.


title: Case C-106/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.
      (Case C-106/16)
      (2016/C 211/29)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Party to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law: Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union preclude the application by a Member State, in which a commercial company (public limited company) was initially incorporated, of provisions of national law which make removal from the commercial register conditional on the company being wound up after liquidation has been carried out, if the company has been reincorporated in another Member State pursuant to a shareholders’ decision to continue the legal personality acquired in the State of initial incorporation?

                  2.

                  If the answer to that question is in the negative: Can Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the requirement under national law that proceedings for the liquidation of the company be carried out — including the conclusion of current business, recovery of debts, fulfilment of obligations and sale of company assets, satisfaction or securing of creditors, submission of a financial statement on the conduct of those acts, and indication of the person to whom the books and documents are to be entrusted — which precede the winding-up thereof, which occurs on removal from the commercial register, is a measure which is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to a public interest deserving of protection in the form of safeguarding of creditors, minority shareholders, and employees of the migrant company?

                  3.

                  Must Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that restrictions on the freedom of establishment include a situation in which — for the purpose of conversion to a company of another Member State — a company transfers its registered office to that other Member State without changing its place of principal establishment, which remains in the State of initial incorporation?


title: Case C-145/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany)) — Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis (Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 2004/38/EC — Articles 16(4) and 28(3)(a) — Union citizen born and having resided for over 30 years in the host Member State — Absences from the host Member State — Criminal convictions — Expulsion decision — Imperative grounds of public security)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany)) — Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis
   (Case C-145/09) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 16(4) and 28(3)(a) - Union citizen born and having resided for over 30 years in the host Member State - Absences from the host Member State - Criminal convictions - Expulsion decision - Imperative grounds of public security)
   2011/C 30/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Defendant: Panagiotis Tsakouridis

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Article 16(4) and 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and Corrigenda in OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2007 L 204, p. 28) — Decision to expel a European citizen, who was born and had resided for more than thirty years in the host Member State, on account of a number of criminal convictions — Interpretation of the concept of ‘imperative grounds of public security’ and of the conditions for the loss of protection against expulsion, acquired on account of the abovementioned provision

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a Union citizen has resided in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the expulsion decision, which is the decisive criterion for granting enhanced protection under that provision, all the relevant factors must be taken into account in each individual case, in particular the duration of each period of absence from the host Member State, the cumulative duration and the frequency of those absences, and the reasons why the person concerned left the host Member State, reasons which may establish whether those absences involve the transfer to another State of the centre of the personal, family or occupational interests of the person concerned.

               2.

               Should the referring court conclude that the Union citizen concerned enjoys the protection of Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the fight against crime in connection with dealing in narcotics as part of an organised group is capable of being covered by the concept of ‘imperative grounds of public security’ which may justify a measure expelling a Union citizen who has resided in the host Member State for the preceding 10 years. Should the referring court conclude that the Union citizen concerned enjoys the protection of Article 28(2) of Directive 2004/38, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the fight against crime in connection with dealing in narcotics as part of an organised group is covered by the concept of ‘serious grounds of public policy or public security’.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-134/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 10 April 2009 — Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL — A.R.A.Ch, Bernard Page v Région wallonne

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 10 April 2009 — Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL — A.R.A.Ch, Bernard Page v Région wallonne
   (Case C-134/09)
   2009/C 153/41
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL — A.R.A.Ch, Bernard Page

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislation — such as the Decree of the Walloon Region on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest of 17 July 2008 — which merely states that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’ for the grant of town planning consents, environmental consents and combined town planning and environmental consents relating to the acts and works listed therein and which ‘ratifies’ consents in respect of which it is stated that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Do Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Council Directive No 97/11/EC (2) and Directive No 2003/35/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council, preclude a legal regime in which the right to implement a project subject to an environmental impact assessment is conferred by a legislative act against which no review procedure is available before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law which makes it possible to challenge, both in terms of the substance and the procedure followed, the decision granting the right to implement the project?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, (4) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality, in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment, of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the provisions of Article 6?

                           (c)

                           In the light of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality of decisions, acts or omissions in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, P. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

      (4)  Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case T-111/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Reduction of the financial assistance — Time-limit for adopting a decision)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-111/12) (1)

      (Cohesion Fund - Reduction of the financial assistance - Time-limit for adopting a decision)
      (2015/C 073/30)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, acting as Agent, and initially by J. Rivas Andrés and X.M. García García, and subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the projects ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043), ‘Water supply and sewer systems in the Duero river basin — 2001’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070), ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Valencia — 2001 — Group II’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026) and ‘Sanitation systems and waste water treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the projects ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043), ‘Water supply and sewer systems in the Duero river basin — 2001’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070), ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Valencia — 2001 — Group II’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026) and ‘Sanitation systems and waste water treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036);

                  2.

                  orders the commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2003 in Case T-354/02: Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corporation v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 304/30                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       13.12.2003
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     of 29 September 2003
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
in Case T-354/02: Bristol-Myers Squibb International                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Corporation v Commission of the European Communi-                                 Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2003 in Appeal R 610/
                                ties (1)                                          2001-4;
(Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
               measure — No need to adjudicate)                             —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                         (2003/C 304/55)
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-354/02: Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corpor-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ation, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by
D. Anderson QC, K. Bacon, barrister, and I. Dodds-Smith,
solicitor, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: X. Lewis and H.C. Støvlbaek) — application for                     Applicant for Com-           Volkswagen AG.
annulment of Commission Decision C(2002)3370 of 9 Sep-                      munity trade mark:
tember 2002 concerning the placing on the market of the
medicinal products for human use which contain the substance
‘Captopril’ — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),                 Community trade mark         The word mark ‘VARIANT’ for
composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,                applied for:                 goods and services in Classes 7,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 29 September                                            12 and 37 (inter alia, motors and
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                                                         their parts, vehicles and repair).
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action;
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Nacional Motor S.A.
2.    The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the       sign cited in the oppo-
      applicant.                                                            sition proceedings:
(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        The Spanish word marks ‘DERBI-
                                                                            opposition:                  VARIANT’, ‘DERBI VARIANT’,
                                                                                and ‘VARIANTDERBI’ for goods
                                                                                in Class 12 (inter alia vehicles).
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Volkswagen                           Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     sition Division:
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-317/03)                                   Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and rejection
                         (2003/C 304/56)                                                                 of the application.
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was           Pleas in law:                —     Infringement of Article 74(1)
                           drafted: German)                                                                    of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94;
                                                                                —     Misapplication               of
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                                                        (EC) No 40/94.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
15 September 2003 by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg (Ger-
many), represented by S. Risthaus, lawyer. Nacional Motor
S.A., Martorelles (Spain), was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case T-162/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Undertakings — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Exporting country — Scope of the investigation — Sampling — Normal value — Definition of the product concerned — Time limit for the adoption of a decision on a market economy treatment claim — Temporal application of new provisions — Injury — Causal link)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council
   (Case T-162/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Undertakings - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Exporting country - Scope of the investigation - Sampling - Normal value - Definition of the product concerned - Time limit for the adoption of a decision on a market economy treatment claim - Temporal application of new provisions - Injury - Causal link))
   (2017/C 121/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH (Munich, Germany), Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China), Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China) Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented initially by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, and subsequently by A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission, represented initially by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-289/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014  — Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Article 59 and Annex XIII — Identification of anthracene oil, anthracene low, as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure — Equal treatment)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/22

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission
   (Case C-289/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Article 59 and Annex XIII - Identification of anthracene oil, anthracene low, as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure - Equal treatment))
   2014/C 409/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S and Koppers UK Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-88/07: Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/22

         Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-88/07)
   (2007/C 95/39)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that,

                           —

                           by withdrawing from the market a significant number of products based on vegetable matter, lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State, under an administrative practice consisting in withdrawing from the market any product containing vegetable matter not included in the annex to the Ministerial Order of 3 October 1873 on the ground that it is regarded as a medicinal product marketed without the requisite authorisation,

                           —

                           and also by not having communicated that measure to the Commission,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and also Articles 1 and 4 of Decision No 3052/95/EC (1);

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission maintains that by withdrawing from the market products manufactured on the basis of bananas, lawfully produced or marketed in other Member States, under an administrative practice which characterises as a medicinal product (and as such subject to the requisite authorisation) any product containing vegetable matter not included in the annex to the Ministerial Order of 3 October 1973, and by not having notified to the Commission the measures taken to withdraw the products concerned from the market within 45 days of the date on which such measures were taken, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty and Articles 1 and 4 of Decision No 3052/95/EC.

      (1)  Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community (OJ 1995 L 321, p. 1).


title: Case T-539/08: Order of the General Court of 7 September 2010 — Etimine and Etiproducts v Commission (Actions for annulment — Environment and protection of human health — Classification, packaging and labelling of certain borates as dangerous substances — Directive 2008/58/EC — Directive 67/548/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Amendment of form of order sought — Temporal application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/30

         Order of the General Court of 7 September 2010 — Etimine and Etiproducts v Commission
   (Case T-539/08) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Classification, packaging and labelling of certain borates as dangerous substances - Directive 2008/58/EC - Directive 67/548/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Amendment of form of order sought - Temporal application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 301/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Etimine SA (Bettembourg, Luxembourg), and Ab Etiproducts Oy, (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Borax Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and S. Kinsella, Solicitor)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by B. Weis Fogh, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2008 L 246, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1), in so far as they amend the classification of certain borates

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Etimine SA and Ab Etiproducts Oy are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Denmark and Borax Europe Ltd are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-534/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2014  — Schenker v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Administrative file and final Commission decision concerning a cartel, non-confidential version of that decision — Refusal of access — Obligation to carry out a specific, individual examination — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — Overriding public interest)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2014 — Schenker v Commission
   (Case T-534/11) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Administrative file and final Commission decision concerning a cartel, non-confidential version of that decision - Refusal of access - Obligation to carry out a specific, individual examination - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Overriding public interest))
   2014/C 409/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schenker AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. von Hammerstein, B. Beckmann and C. D. Munding, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially M. Kellerbauer, C. ten Dam and P. Costa de Oliveira, then Mr. Kellerbauer, P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Leupold, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer); Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling and M. Bredenoord-Spoek, lawyers); Société Air France SA (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann abd S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers); Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Queensway, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: initially by B. Bär-Bouyssière, lawyer, M. Rees, Solicitor, D. Vaughan, QC, and R. Kreisberger, Barrister, then by M. Rees, D. Vaughan and R. Kreisberger); Air Canada (Québec, Canada) (represented by: J. Pheasant, Solicitor, and C. Wünschmann, lawyer); Lufthansa Cargo AG (Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany) and Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: initially S. Völcker and E. Arsenidou, then S. Völcker and J. Orologas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 3 August 2011 refusing to grant access to the administrative file of decision C (2010) 7694 final (Case COMP/39.258 — Air Cargo), to the full version of that decision and its non-confidential version.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission decision of 3 August 2011 refusing access to the administrative file of decision C (2010) 7694 final (Case COMP/39.258 — Air Cargo), to the full version of that decision and its non-confidential version, in that the Commission has refused access to the part of the non-confidential version of the decision at issue for which the undertakings concerned by it had not requested, or continued to not request, confidentiality;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Schenker AG to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV, Société Air France SA, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, Air Canada, Lufthansa Cargo AG and Swiss International Air Lines AG to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-159/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2017 — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Constanța — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Fizice

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2017 — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Constanța — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Fizice
   (Case C-159/17)
   (2017/C 221/06)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Constanța

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius

      Respondents: Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Constanța — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Fizice

      Question referred

   Must Articles 167, 168, 169, 179, 213(1), 214(1)(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, requires a taxpayer, whose registration for VAT purposes has been revoked, to pay to the State the VAT collected during the period in which the VAT identification code was revoked, without, however, recognising his right to deduct the VAT relating to purchases made during that period?

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