title: Case T-276/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Chyzh and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Period allowed for modifying the form of order sought — Partial inadmissibility — Entity owned or controlled by a person or entity subject to the restrictive measures — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Chyzh and Others v Council
   (Case T-276/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Belarus - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Period allowed for modifying the form of order sought - Partial inadmissibility - Entity owned or controlled by a person or entity subject to the restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))
   (2015/C 398/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Yury Aleksandrovich Chyzh (Minsk, Belarus); Triple TAA (Minsk); NefteKhimTrading STAA (Minsk); Askargoterminal ZAT (Minsk); Bereza Silicate Products Plant AAT (Bereza, Belarus); Variant TAA (Berezovsky, Belarus); Triple-Dekor STAA (Minsk); KvartsMelProm SZAT (Khotislav, Belarus); Altersolutions SZAT (Minsk); Prostoremarket SZAT (Minsk); AquaTriple STAA (Minsk); Rakovsky brovar TAA (Minsk); TriplePharm STAA (Logoysk, Belarus); and Triple-Veles TAA (Molodechno, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, B. Evtimov, lawyer and M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95), of Council Implementing Decision (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37), Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7), Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642 (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 69), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 1), Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Council Decision 2012/642 (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 39) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 2), in so far as those acts apply to the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus in so far as they relate to Mr Yury Aleksandrovich Chyzh, Triple TAA, NefteKhimTrading STAA, Askargoterminal ZAT, Bereza Silicate Products Plant AAT, Variant TAA, Triple-Dekor STAA, KvartsMelProm SZAT, Altersolutions SZAT, Prostoremarket SZAT, AquaTriple STAA, Rakovsky brovar TAA, TriplePharm STAA and Triple-Veles TAA;

               2.

               Annuls Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus in so far as they relate to NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles;

               3.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Decision 2012/642 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus in so far as they relate to Mr Chyzh, Triple, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant and Rakovsky brovar;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013 in so far as they concern Mr Chyzh, Triple, Variant and TriplePharm;

               5.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               6.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Chyzh, Triple, NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant, Rakovsky brovar, TriplePharm and Triple-Veles.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 1997 in Case C-285/94: Italian Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1840/94 of 27 July 1994 fixing the olive yields and oil yields for the marketing year 1993/94 - Action for annulment)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 252/7
a cabinet housing a sealed lead-acid accumulator battery                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
must be classified under tariff subheading 85. 01 . B. II as                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
'transformers, static converters, rectifiers and rectifying
apparatus '.                                                                                of 25 June 1997
                                                                      in Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94 , C-342/94 and
(' OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                       C-224/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Terni and di Pescara ): criminal
                                                                      proceedings against Euro Tombesi and Adino Tombesi,
                                                                      Roberto Santella, Giovanni Muzi and Others and Anselmo
                                                                                Savini ( 1 )
                                                                      (Waste — Definition — Council Directives 91/156/EEC
                                                                             and 91/689/EEC — Council Regulation (EEC)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             No 259/93)
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( 97/C 252/ 13 )
                         of 25 June 1997
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-285/94: Italian Republic v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (')
(Commission Regulation (EC) No 1840/94 of 27 July                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
1994 fixing the olive yields and oil yields for the                            published in the European Court Reports)
      marketing year 1993/94 — Action for annulment)
                           ( 97/C 252/ 12                             In Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94, C-342/94 and
                                                                      C-224/95 : references to the Court under Article 177 of the
                                                                      EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Terni ( C-304/
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      94,    C-330/94     and      C-342/94 )   and    the   Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Pescara ( C-224/95 ) ( Italy) for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
                                                                      before those courts against Euro Tombesi and Adino
                                                                      Tombesi ( C-304/94 ), Roberto Santella ( C-330/94 ),
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Giovanni Muzi and Others ( C-342/94 ) and Anselmo
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Savini ( C-224/95 ) — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                      Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 , amending
                                                                      Directive 75/442/EC on waste ( OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 ,
In Case C-285/94: Italian Republic ( Agent: Professor                 p. 32 ), of Council Directive 91 /689/EEC of 12 December
                                                                      1991 on hazardous waste ( OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 ,
Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato
dello Stato ) v. Commission of the European Communities               p. 20 ), and of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of
(Agent: Eugenio de March, assisted by Alexandre                       1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
Carnelutti ) — application for the annulment of                       shipments on waste within, into and out of the European
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1840/94 of 27 July 1994               Community ( OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ) — the Court
fixing the olive yields and oil yields for the marketing year         ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
1993/94 ( OJ No L 193 , 28 . 7. 1994, p. 1 ) — the Court              of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President               ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; L.
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),             Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; D.                  judgment on 25 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 1997, in which
it :                                                                  The concept of 'waste ' in Article 1 of Council Directive
                                                                       75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by
                                                                       Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 , referred
                                                                      to in Article 1 (3) of Council Directive 91 /689/EEC of
 1 . dismisses the application;                                        12 December 1991 on hazardous waste and Article 2 (a)
                                                                      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February
                                                                       1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste
                                                                      within, into and out of the European Community, is not
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     to be understood as excluding substances and objects
                                                                      which are capable of economic reutilization, even if the
(') OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                      materials in question may be the subject of a transaction
                                                                      or quoted on public or private commercial lists. In
                                                                      particular, a deactivation process intended merely to
                                                                      render waste harmless, landfill tipping in hollows or
                                                                       embankments and waste incineration constitute disposal


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2000 in Joined Cases C-432/98 P and C-433/98 P: Council of the European Union v Christine Chvatal and Others (Appeal — Officials — Termination of service as a result of the accession of new Member States — Objection that Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 is unlawful — Objection inadmissible)

text:
9.12.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 355/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       On a proper construction of Article 1(1) of Council Directive
                                                                             77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the
                                                                             laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’
                      of 26 September 2000                                   rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
                                                                             businesses, that directive applies where a municipality, a legal person
                                                                             governed by public law operating within the framework of specific
in Case C-175/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Metz): Didier Mayeur v                         rules of administrative law, takes over activities relating to publicity
Association Promotion de l’Information Messine                               and information concerning the services which it offers to the public,
                                                                             where such activities were previously carried out, in the interests of
                             (APIM)(1)
                                                                             that municipality, by a non-profit-making association which was a
                                                                             legal person governed by private law, provided always that the
(Maintenance of workers’ rights in the event of transfer of                  transferred entity retains its identity.
an undertaking — Transfer to a municipality of an activity
previously carried out, in the interests of that municipality,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
        by a legal person established under private law)
                          (2000/C 355/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                of 5 October 2000
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Joined Cases C-432/98 P and C-433/98 P: Council of the
                                                                                European Union v Christine Chvatal and Others (1)
In Case C-175/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil de
                                                                             (Appeal — Officials — Termination of service as a result of
Prud’hommes de Metz (Labour Tribunal, Metz), France for a
                                                                             the accession of new Member States — Objection that
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 is unlawful
tribunal between Didier Mayeur and Association Promotion
                                                                                — Objection inadmissible)
de l’Information Messine (APIM) — on the interpretation of
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February
1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                                              (2000/C 355/02)
relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event
of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
(OJ 1977 L 61 p. 26) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-                                       (Language of the case: French)
guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and                                         in the European Court Reports)
V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    In Joined Cases C-432/98 P and C-433/98 P: Council of the
26 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                                    European Union (Agents: J.P. Jacqué, D. Canga Fano and
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.12.2000
T. Blanchet), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Abad) — Appeals against the judgments of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of
30 September 1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v                                            of 5 October 2000
Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I-A-527 and II-1579 and Case
T-13/97 Losch v Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I-A-543 and
II-1633, seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other              in Case C-434/98 P: Council of the European Union v
parties to the proceedings being Christiane Chvatal and Others,            Silvio Busacca and Others and Court of Auditors of the
officials of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,                                European Communities (1)
represented by J.-N. Louis and T. Demaseure, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Société de
Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale 585, Antoinette Losch, official          (Appeal — Officials — Dispute between the Community
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, rep-                  and its servants — Appeal by an institution which did not
resented by J.-N. Louis and T. Demaseure, of the Brussels Bar,                        intervene at first instance — Inadmissible)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Société de
Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale 585, Court of Justice of the
European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg, and Kingdom                                                 (2000/C 355/03)
of the Netherlands, Bezuidenhoutseweg 67, The Hague —
the Court composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm,
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
trar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, in which it:                                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-434/98 P: Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                           J.-P. Jacqué, D. Canga Fano and T. Blanchet), supported by
1.    Sets aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad) — Appeal against
      European Communities of 30 September 1998 in Case
                                                                           the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
      T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court of Justice and Case
                                                                           Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 1998 in Case
      T-13/97 Losch v Court of Justice;
                                                                           T-164/97 Busacca and Others v Court of Auditors [1998]
                                                                           ECR-SC I-A-565 and II-1699, seeking to have that judgment
                                                                           set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being Silvio
                                                                           Busacca and Others, officials of the Court of Auditors of the
2.    Dismisses the actions brought before the Court of First Instance     European Communities, represented by G. Vandersanden and
      in Cases T-154/96 and T-13/97;                                       L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale
                                                                           585, and Court of Auditors of the European Communities,
                                                                           (Agent: P. Giusta) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
                                                                           Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward,
3.    Orders Christiane Chvatal and Others and Antoinette Losch,           L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann,
      the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the Council        A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm,
      of the European Union, the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom          M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
      of the Netherlands to bear their own costs, incurred both at first   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
      instance and on appeal.                                              trar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the appeal as inadmissible;
                                                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                           3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the other
                                                                                costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Case T-230/06: Action brought on 29 August 2006 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM (Port Louis)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/21

         Action brought on 29 August 2006 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM (Port Louis)
   (Case T-230/06)
   (2006/C 261/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by M. Kinkeldey and A. Lehmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 June 2006 — Case R 25/2006-1 — with regard to Community trade mark application no. 003 664 133 PORT LOUIS;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Port Louis’ for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 (application no. 366 4133).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as the mark for which registration is sought is capable of registration. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the right to a fair hearing has been infringed.

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


title: Case C-653/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) — Meaning of ‘supply of services’ — Supply of advertising and loan broking services — Exemptions — Economic and commercial reality of the transactions — Abusive practices — Transactions with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance
   (Case C-653/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Supply of advertising and loan broking services - Exemptions - Economic and commercial reality of the transactions - Abusive practices - Transactions with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage)
   2013/C 225/31
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 9(2)(e) and Article 13B(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of supplies of loan broking services — Loan broking activities directed at the United Kingdom by a company established in Jersey calling on the services of a person established in the United Kingdom — Attribution of the activities to the company established in Jersey or to the person established in the United Kingdom

      Operative part of the judgment

   Contractual terms, even though they constitute a factor to be taken into consideration, are not decisive for the purposes of identifying the supplier and the recipient of a ‘supply of services’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000. They may in particular be disregarded if it becomes apparent that they do not reflect economic and commercial reality, but constitute a wholly artificial arrangement which does not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage, which it is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Joined Cases C-444/16 and C-445/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Immo Chiaradia SPRL (C-444/16), Docteur De Bruyne SPRL (C-445/16) v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Principle that valuation must be made on a prudent basis — Issuing company of a share option recognising the grant date price of the option in the course of the accounting year in which the option is exercised or at the end of its period of validity)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/19

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Immo Chiaradia SPRL (C-444/16), Docteur De Bruyne SPRL (C-445/16) v État belge
   (Joined Cases C-444/16 and C-445/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 78/660/EEC - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Principle that valuation must be made on a prudent basis - Issuing company of a share option recognising the grant date price of the option in the course of the accounting year in which the option is exercised or at the end of its period of validity))
   (2017/C 277/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Immo Chiaradia SPRL (C-444/16), Docteur De Bruyne SPRL (C-445/16)

      Defendant: État belge

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principles that a true and fair view must be given and that valuation must be made on a prudent basis set out in Articles 2(3) and 31(1)(c) respectively of Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [50(2)(g) TFEU] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003, must be interpreted as not precluding an accounting method according to which a company issuing a share option may recognise as income the grant date price of that option in the course of the accounting year in which that option is exercised or at the end of its period of validity.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.6.2016.


title: Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-112/98)

text:
10.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/15
orders issued by the delegate resulted in a contract which          a breach of the confidentiality of medical information,
had, in terms of achieving its goal Ð namely, development           which is an absolute requirement and a matter of public
aid for Somalia Ð plainly become wholly obsolete, being             policy.
forcibly performed. Yet the applicant's assets could have
been preserved by an immediate withdrawal from                      Lastly, the appointing authority has failed to comply with
Somalia.                                                            the mandatory time limits laid down in Article 7 of the
                                                                    rules on disciplinary proceedings: the imposition of a
                                                                    disciplinary measure three and a half years after the
                                                                    disciplinary proceedings were commenced represents a
                                                                    manifest failure to respect any reasonable time limit. In
                                                                    view of that failure, it is no longer possible for any
Action brought on 20 July 1998 by AndreÂ van Meuter                 disciplinary measure to be taken and the disciplinary
  against the Commission of the European Communities                proceedings must be closed.
                       (Case T-109/98)
                        (98/C 312/38)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                    Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Mannesmannröhren-
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Werke AG against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998                                          Communities
by AndreÂ van Meuter, residing in Brussels, represented by                                 (Case T-112/98)
Olivier Eben and Jean-Marc Bievez, of the Brussels Bar,                                      (98/C 312/39)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-                               (Language of the case: German)
Alzette.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998
Ð annul the disciplinary measure taken by the appointing            by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office
    authority on 10 October 1997, by which the applicant            is in Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by
    was downgraded from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2,            Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Rechtsanwälte, Düssel-
    step 8, and order that he be reinstated in his former           dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    grade,                                                          Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
Ð order that the disciplinary proceedings against the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    applicant be closed,
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May
Ð order that no other disciplinary measure be taken                      1998 in its entirety,
    against the applicant,
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision,
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs.
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By the contested decision, the appointing authority
decided to impose on the applicant, with effect from                In the course of an investigation to ascertain alleged
1 November 1997, the disciplinary measure of                        infringements by steel pipe producers of Article 85 of the
downgrading from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2, step 8,           EC Treaty, the Commission addressed the contested
on the grounds that the applicant had failed to comply              decision to the defendant, requiring it to provide the
with his obligation to undergo a medical examination, as            information specified in the schedule to the decision
he had undertaken to do, and that he had not lived up to            within 30 days or pay a default fine of ECU 1 000 per day
the trust which the appointing authority had placed in              in the event of non-compliance.
him.
                                                                    The applicant complains that the Commission did not
According to the applicant, he cannot be downgraded.                allow it a sufficient hearing before issuing the decision.
Despite the excellent staff reports drawn up in relation to         There was thus a lack of any proper preliminary
him, and despite his having passed a competition, he has            procedure, contrary to Article 11(5) in conjunction with
never been promoted. Downgrading means that the                     Article 16(2) of Regulation 17. The Commission further
applicant has been penalised twice on the basis of the              failed to make available to the applicant in an appropriate
same facts, the first penalty being his non-promotion.              manner those documents which it used in issuing a
                                                                    decision causing lasting prejudice to the applicant, and
Moreover, to impose a disciplinary measure without                  upon which it based that decision. The principles in the
making the applicant's medical file available to him                Solvay (1) and ICI (2) cases were thereby infringed. The
constitutes a violation of the rights of the defence. The           applicant also complains of a breach of Article 190 of the
fact that details of the applicant's state of health were           EC Treaty in that the formal statement of reasons for the
revealed to the appointing authority represents, a fortiori,        decision does not explain why it was necessary.
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
The applicant submits that, in accordance with the                       rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
judgment in Orkem (3), it is not obliged to answer                       which was not taken into consideration in the
questions which could lead to self-incrimination. It further             calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
maintains that in accordance with Article 6(1) of the                    account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
European Convention on Human Rights, the guarantees                      Staff Regulations,
contained in which are fundamental principles of
Community law and thus take precedence over the merely
legislative provisions of Regulation 17, it is legally entitled      Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
to refuse to take any action whereby it would be
compelled directly to incriminate itself in the investigation.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Self-incrimination has, it adds, also been held to be an
infringement of the presumption of innocence under
Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
Rights and of the negative freedom of expression                     raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
protected by Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant's
right not to be compelled to incriminate itself by its own
actions arises not merely from Community law, but also,              (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 36.
the applicant submits, arises at the same time and in
parallel from German domestic law in so far as it is not
superseded by Community law.
By directly fixing a coercive fine, the Commission
disregarded the two-stage procedure laid down for that               Action brought on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen
purpose, and failed in particular to communicate the                          against the Council of the European Union
points of complaint, as required before fixing the amount
of daily coercive penalties, to allow the applicant a proper                               (Case T-118/98)
hearing and to comply with the other procedural                                              (98/C 312/41)
requirements. Moreover, the Commission's fixing of the
daily penalty at the maximum amount of ECU 1 000 was
disproportionate and thus an abuse of its discretion. The                           (Language of the case: French)
applicant comprehensively answered seven of the eleven
questions put to it in the context of the Commission's
enquiry. It was not obliged to answer the four remaining             An action against the Council of the European Union was
questions, as in that respect it could rely on its right not         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
to be compelled to incriminate itself.                               Communities on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen
                                                                     resident in Rungsted Kyst, Denmark, represented by Jean-
(1) Case T-30/91 Solvay v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1821.            NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
(2) Case T-36/91 ICI v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1847.               FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
(3) Case 374/87 Orkem v. Commission [1989] ECR 3282.                 for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                     Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen against              Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
             the Council of the European Union                           the request for refund of that part of the pension
                        (Case T-113/98)                                  rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
                                                                         which was not taken into consideration in the
                         (98/C 312/40)
                                                                         calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                         account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
               (Language of the case: French)                            Staff Regulations,
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
Communities on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen, resident
in La Hulpe, Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                     raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 36.
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
     the request for refund of that part of the pension


title: Case C-325/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC (Article 39 EC — Freedom of movement for workers — Restriction — Professional football players — Obligation to sign the first professional contract with the club which provided the training — Player ordered to pay damages for infringement of that obligation — Justification — Objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young professional players)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC
   (Case C-325/08) (1)

   (Article 39 EC - Freedom of movement for workers - Restriction - Professional football players - Obligation to sign the first professional contract with the club which provided the training - Player ordered to pay damages for infringement of that obligation - Justification - Objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young professional players)
   2010/C 134/05
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Olympique Lyonnais SASP

      Defendant: Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — National provision obliging a football player to pay compensation to the club which trained him when, at the end of his training period, he signs a professional contract with a club of another Member State — Barrier to the freedom of movement for workers — Possible justification of such a restriction in the need to encourage the recruitment and training of young professional players

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFUE does not preclude a scheme which, in order to attain the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, guarantees compensation to the club which provided the training if, at the end of his training period, a young player signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State, provided that the scheme is suitable to ensure the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.
   A scheme such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which a ‘joueur espoir’ who signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State at the end of his training period is liable to pay damages calculated in a way which is unrelated to the actual costs of the training, is not necessary to ensure the attainment of that objective.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case T-378/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014  — Salama v Council

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/27

         Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Salama v Council
   (Case T-378/14)
   2014/C 245/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, A. Bailleux, Q. Declève, P. Vovan, S. Rowe and A. Yehia, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-375/14 Al Naggar v Council.


title: Case C-446/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Modena (Italy) lodged on 1 October 2007 — Alberto Severi, Cavazzuti e figli v Regione Emilia-Romagna

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Modena (Italy) lodged on 1 October 2007 — Alberto Severi, Cavazzuti e figli v Regione Emilia-Romagna
   (Case C-446/07)
   (2008/C 51/52)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale civile di Modena
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alberto Severi, Cavazzuti e figli

      Defendant: Regione Emilia-Romagna
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (now Articles 3(1) and 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/06) (1) in relation to Article 2 of Legislative Decree 109/92 (Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC) (2) be interpreted as meaning that the name of a food product containing geographical references, for which, at national level, the submission of an application to the Commission for registration as a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) within the meaning of those regulations has been ‘rejected’ or blocked, must be considered generic at least throughout the period for which such ‘rejection’ or blocking remains effective?

               2.

               Must Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (now Articles 3(1) and 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/06) in relation to Article 2 of Legislative Decree 109/92 (Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC) be interpreted as meaning that the name of a food product which is evocative of a place not registered as a PDO or PGI within the meaning of those regulations may be legitimately used in the European market by producers who have used it in good faith and uninterruptedly for a considerable period before the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (now Regulation (EC) No 510/06) and in the period following the entry into force of that provision?

               3.

               Must Article 15(2) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (3) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a collective mark for a food product containing a geographical reference is not allowed to prevent producers of a product having the same characteristics from using to describe it a name similar to that contained in the collective mark, where those producers have used that name in good faith and uninterruptedly over a period of time considerably pre-dating the registration of that collective mark?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

      (3)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Case C-420/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 August 2011 — Jutta Leth v Republic of Austria, Land Niederösterreich

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 August 2011 — Jutta Leth v Republic of Austria, Land Niederösterreich
   (Case C-420/11)
   2011/C 319/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jutta Leth

      Defendants: Republic of Austria, Land Niederösterreich

      Question referred

   Is Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, (1) in the version of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, (2) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 (3) (‘EIA Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that

               1.

               the term ‘material assets’ covers only their substance or also their value;

               2.

               the environmental impact assessment serves also to protect an individual against pecuniary damage as a result of a decrease in the value of his property?

      (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.


title: Case T-754/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties — Article 11(4) TEU — Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Equal treatment)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission
   (Case T-754/14) (1)

   ((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties - Article 11(4) TEU - Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Equal treatment))
   (2017/C 202/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: B. Kempen, professor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Laitenberger and H. Krämer, subsequently by H. Krämer and finally by H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposal for a citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Mr Michael Efler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-88/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GLÄNSA — Earlier Community word mark GLANZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)
   (Case T-88/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GLÄNSA - Earlier Community word mark GLANZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 269/106
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Inter IKEA Systems BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Meteor Controls International Ltd (Cookstown, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2009 (Case R 529/2009-2) in relation to opposition proceedings between Meteor Controls International Ltd and Inter IKEA Systems BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Inter IKEA Systems BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-325/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Maria Dias (Free movement of persons — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 16 — Right of permanent residence — Periods completed before the date of transposition of that directive — Legal residence — Residence based solely on a residence permit issued pursuant to Directive 68/360/EEC, without the conditions governing eligibility for any right of residence having been satisfied)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Maria Dias
   (Case C-325/09) (1)

   (Free movement of persons - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 16 - Right of permanent residence - Periods completed before the date of transposition of that directive - Legal residence - Residence based solely on a residence permit issued pursuant to Directive 68/360/EEC, without the conditions governing eligibility for any right of residence having been satisfied)
   2011/C 269/06
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Defendant: Maria Dias

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 16(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Interpretation of Article 18(1) of the EC Treaty — Right of permanent residence — Concept of legal residence — Citizen of the Union, holder of a five-year residence permit for the United Kingdom issued in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 68/360/EEC, whose period of residence was interrupted by a period of voluntary unemployment — Permit issued before entry into force of Directive 2004/38/EC — Taking into consideration of periods of residence completed before the date of entry into force of the directive?

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 16(1) and (4) 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:

               —

               periods of residence completed before 30 April 2006 on the basis solely of a residence permit validly issued pursuant to Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families, without the conditions governing entitlement to any right of residence having been satisfied, cannot be regarded as having been completed legally for the purposes of the acquisition of the right of permanent residence under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38, and

               —

               periods of residence of less than two consecutive years, completed on the basis solely of a residence permit validly issued pursuant to Directive 68/360, without the conditions governing entitlement to a right of residence having been satisfied, which occurred before 30 April 2006 and after a continuous period of five years’ legal residence completed prior to that date, are not such as to affect the acquisition of the right of permanent residence under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case T-141/14: Order of the General Court of 1 February 2016 — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Actions for annulment — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duties — Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/23

         Order of the General Court of 1 February 2016 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
   (Case T-141/14) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking - Non-severability - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 111/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA (Castelfidardo, Italy); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent)

      Intervening parties in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); 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 by: A. Willems, S. De Knop, lawyers, and K. Daly, Solicitor); and China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (Beijing, China) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 3 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).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. shall be removed from Case T-141/14 as interveners.

               3.

               SolarWorld AG, Brandoni solare SpA and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA shall pay their own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

               4.

               The European Commission, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. and the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products shall pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-304/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Alumina v Council (Dumping — Imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Normal value — Representativeness of domestic sales — Profit margin — Ordinary course of trade)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Alumina v Council
   (Case T-304/11) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Normal value - Representativeness of domestic sales - Profit margin - Ordinary course of trade)
   2013/C 171/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alumina d.o.o. (Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ 2011 L 125, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in so far as it concerns Alumina d.o.o.;

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case C-58/12 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2012 by Groupe Gascogne SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2011 in Case T-72/06 Groupe Gascogne v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/18

         Appeal brought on 6 February 2012 by Groupe Gascogne SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2011 in Case T-72/06 Groupe Gascogne v Commission
   (Case C-58/12 P)
   2012/C 89/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Groupe Gascogne SA (represented by: P. Hubert and E. Durand, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal inasmuch as it dismissed the action brought by Groupe Gascogne SA for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags) and ordered Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs;

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal inasmuch as it upheld the penalty imposed on Groupe Gascogne SA by the contested decision;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for judgment as may be required by the Court or directly set the penalty at an amount:

                           —

                           not exceeding 10 % of the combined turnover of the companies Sachsa and Groupe Gascogne S.A., the only undertakings implicated in the present proceedings;

                           —

                           and/or taking into account the fact that the duration of the proceedings before the General Court was manifestly excessive;

               —

               order the defendant, the European Commission, to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings in their entirety.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   By the first ground of appeal, Groupe Gascogne SA submits that the General Court erred in law by refusing to examine the impact of the changes in the European Union legal order when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009, in particular with regard to the consequences for the present case of applying the provisions of Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, safeguarding Groupe Gascogne SA’s presumption of innocence.
   By the second ground of appeal, Groupe Gascogne SA submits that the General Court infringed Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (i) by incorrectly attributing joint and several liability to Groupe Gascogne SA for the practices engaged in by Sachsa as from 1 January 1994 solely on the basis that Groupe Gascogne SA held 100 % of Sachsa’s share capital, and (ii) by upholding the contested decision inasmuch as the latter held Groupe Gascogne SA jointly and severally liable, as to EUR 9.90 million, for the payment of the fine imposed on Sachsa.
   By the third ground of appeal — submitted in the alternative — Groupe Gascogne SA submits that the General Court erred in law by misconstruing the concept of ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, in consequence, by ascertaining compliance with the ceiling of 10 % of turnover, laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) en relación con el volumen de negocios consolidado de Grupo Gascogne, cuando debería haberse basado — en la medida en que la sociedad Groupe Gascogne pueda ser considerada conjunta y solidariamente responsable de la infracción reprochada a Sachsa — exclusivamente en el volumen de negocios social acumulado de las sociedades Groupe Gascogne y Sachsa, al no haber expuesto las razones por las que las otras filiales de Gropue Gascogne deberían ser incluidas en la «empresa» responsable de las supuestas prácticas de Sachsa contrarias a la competencia.
   Lastly, by the fourth and final ground of appeal — also submitted in the alternative — Groupe Gascogne SA submits that the General Court has infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that its case was not dealt with within a reasonable time.

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


title: Case C-25/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 19 January 2009 — Sió-Eckes Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 19 January 2009 — Sió-Eckes Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-25/09)
   (2009/C 82/25)
   Language of the case:Hungarian
   Referring court
   Fővarosi Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sió-Eckes Kft.

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in accordance with Annex I, the production aid scheme applies, not only to peaches in syrup and/or in natural fruit juice included in CN code ex 2008 70 61, but also to the products with other CN codes listed in that annex (ex 2008 70 69, etc)?

               2.

               Does the processor which manufactures products under CN code ex 2008 70 92 comply with the provisions of Regulation No 2201/96?

               3.

               May Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the products designated by CN codes ex 2008 70 61, ex 2008 70 69, ex 2008 70 71, ex 2008 70 79, ex 2008 70 92, ex 2008 70 94 and ex 2008 70 99 are also finished products within the meaning of the regulation?

               4.

               In so far as, in accordance with the answers to the previous questions, the definition of finished products is applicable only to the peaches described in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2320/89 (3), why are the CN codes of other products included in the regulations previously cited?

               5.

               In accordance with the regulations cited above, may the products resulting from the separate phases of peach processing be regarded as finished products, regardless of whether they may be marketed (for example, the pulp)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 29).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 2003 L 218, p. 14).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2320/89 of 28 July 1989 of minimum quality requirements for peaches in syrup and peaches in natural fruit juice for the application of the production aid scheme (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 54).


title: Case F-101/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/25

         Action brought on 10 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-101/11)
   2012/C 6/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in the open competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETERS for BULGARIAN (BG) of 30 June 2011 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition and an application for damages for material and non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board in the open competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETERS for BULGARIAN (BG) of 30 June 2011 taken after re-examination of the applicant’s tests, confirming her results in them and, consequently, the decision not to include her on the reserve list;

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board in the open competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETES for BULGARIAN (BG) of 31 May 2011 to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition;

               —

               annul all actions of the selection board subsequent to the stage when the contested irregularities occurred;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, as damages for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant’s career, a sum of EUR 15 000, subject to increase or reduction in the course of the proceedings, together with interest at the annual rate of 7 % from the date of this action;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-197/05 P: Order of the President of the Court of  7 February 2006  — Energy Technologies ET SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Aparellaje eléctrico, SL

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2006 — Energy Technologies ET SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Aparellaje eléctrico, SL
   (Case C-197/05 P) (1)

   (2006/C 154/34)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case C-202/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2011 — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV, previously Hesse Noord Natie NV

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2011 — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV, previously Hesse Noord Natie NV
   (Case C-202/11)
   2011/C 219/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anton Las

      Defendant: PSA Antwerp NV, previously Hesse Noord Natie NV

      Question referred

   Does the Decree of the Flemish Community of 19 July 1973 (B.S. 6 September 1973) infringe Article 39 of the EC Treaty concerning freedom of movement for workers within the European Union, in that it imposes an obligation on an undertaking situated in the Flemish language region when hiring a worker in the context of employment relations with an international character, to draft all documents relating to the employment relationship in Dutch, on pain of nullity?


title: Case T-579/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014  — Birkenstock Sales v OHIM (representation of a surface pattern)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/20

         Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Birkenstock Sales v OHIM (representation of a surface pattern)
   (Case T-579/14)
   2014/C 351/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Vettelschoß, Germany) (represented by C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 1952/2013-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the international registration of the figurative mark representing a surface patter for goods in Classes 10, 18 and 25 — International registration No 1 1 32742

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-256/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 –Giuntoli v OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé SA (CREMERIA TOSCANA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark CREMERIA TOSCANA — Earlier international figurative mark la Cremeria — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 –Giuntoli v OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé SA (CREMERIA TOSCANA)
   (Case T-256/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark CREMERIA TOSCANA - Earlier international figurative mark la Cremeria - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 429/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Andrea Giuntoli (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2014 (Case R 886/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Andrea Giuntoli.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Giuntoli to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 1999 in Case T-102/96: Gencor Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Territorial scope of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Collective dominant position - Commitments)

text:
C 160/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
Hansjürgen Herrmann, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and sub-                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
sequently by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, Enichem SpA, established in Milan,
represented by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Francesca                                       of 25 March 1999
Maria Moretti, of the Bologna Bar, with an address for service
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2, place
Winston Churchill v. Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents : represented initially by Berend Jan Drijber, Julian          in Case T-102/96: Gencor Ltd v. Commission of the
Currall and Marc van der Woude, assisted by Éric Morgan de                                   European Communities (1)
Rivery, Alexandre Böhlke, David Lloyd Jones, Renzo Maria
Morresi and Nicholas Forwood, and subsequently by Julian
Currall, also assisted by Marc van der Woude) — application                 (Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/599/EC of                       declaring a concentration incompatible with the common
27 July 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85                market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Legal
of the EC Treaty (IV/31.865 - PVC) (OJ L 239, 14.9.1994,                    interest in bringing proceedings — Territorial scope of
p. 14) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended               Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Collective dominant pos-
Composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President, K. Lenaerts and                                  ition — Commitments)
A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 April 1999, in which it:
                                                                                (1999/C 160/35)
1. joins cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94,
     T-314/94, T-315/94, 316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94,
     T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 for the purposes of the
     judgment,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2. annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/599/EC of 27 July
     1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC         In case T-102/96: Gencor Ltd, established in Johannesburg,
     Treaty (IV/31.865 - PVC) in so far as it holds that Société            Republic of South Africa, represented by Paul Lasok QC,
     artésienne de Vinyle participated in the infringement in question      instructed by James Flynn and David Hall, Solicitors, London,
     after the first half of 1981,                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Marc Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal), supported by Federal
                                                                            Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Röder, Minis-
3. reduces the fines imposed by Article 3 of that decision on Elf           terialrat, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat, application for
     Atochem SA, Société artésienne de Vinyle and Imperial Chemical         the annulment of Commission Decision 97/26/EC of 24 April
     Industries plc to EUR 2 600 000, EUR 135 000 and EUR                   1996 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the
     1 550 000 respectively,                                                common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement
                                                                            (Case No IV/M.619 — Gencor /Lonrho) (OJ L 11, 14.1.1997,
                                                                            p. 30) — the Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
4. dismisses the remainder of the actions,                                  composed of: J. Azizi, President, B. Vesterdorf, R. Garcı́a-
                                                                            Valdecasas, R. M. Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger; J. Palacio
                                                                            González and A. Mair, Administrators, for the Registrar, has
                                                                            given a judgment on 25 March 1999, in which it:
5. orders each applicant to bear both its own costs and those of the
     Commission in the case which it has brought. However, in Cases
     T-307/94 and T-328/94, Elf Atochem SA, Imperial Chemical               1. dismisses the application,
     Industries plc and the Commission are each ordered to bear their
     own costs. In Case T-318/94, Société artésienne de Vinyle is
     ordered to bear two thirds of its own costs and the Commission         2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by
     is ordered to bear one third of the applicant’s costs in addition to        the Commission,
     its own costs.
                                                                            3. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 331, 26.11.1994.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.


title: Appeal brought on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 28 March 1995 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/94 between Frédéric Daffix and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-166/95 P)

text:
No C 208/6             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
Appeal brought on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the                   'S -Hertogenbosch        ( Regional     Court    of    Appeal,
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                   's-Hertogenbosch ), of 18 May 1995 , which was received at
28 March 1995 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First                 the Court Registry on 31 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/94                     in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J.
between Frederic Daffix and the Commission of the                        Scheres c.s . v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/
                    European Communities                                 Ondernemingen te Roermond ( Head of the Undertakings
                       ( Case C-166/95 P)                                Unit of the Revenue Office, Roermond ) on the following
                                                                         question:
                           ( 95/C 208/ 12 )
                                                                         should Article 9 of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 1 995               meaning that the place where a veterinary surgeon supplies
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               his services as such should be deemed to be the place where
European Communities in Case T-12/94 between Frederic                    he has established his business or has a fixed establishment
Daffix and the Commission of the European Communities                    from which the services are supplied or, in the absence of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   such a place of business or fixed establishment, the place
Communities on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the                      where he has his permanent address or usually resides, or
European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                            should that Article be interpreted as meaning that the place
Gouloussis, of its Legal Service , acting as Agent, assisted by          where a veterinary surgeon supplies his services as such is
Benoit Cambier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                  located elsewhere, namely at the place where those services
service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis,                  are physically carried out or at the place where the customer
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 has established his business or has a fixed establishment to
                                                                          which the service is supplied or, in the absence of such a
The appellant claims that the Court should :                              place, the place where he has his permanent address or
                                                                          usually resides ?
— set aside the judgment given on 28 March 1995 by the
     Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     European Communities in Case T-12/94 ('),
 — grant the form of order sought by the Commission
     before the Court of First Instance and , as a consequence,
     reject the claims of Frederic Daffix,
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
 — make an appropriate order as to costs .                                Circondariale di Vicenza by order of that court of 22 April
                                                                           1995 in criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                                against Luciano Arcaro
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case C-168/95 )
 — inadmissibility of the plea in law upheld by the Court of                                        ( 95/C 208/14 )
     First Instance : the Court of First Instance was wrong in
     considering that, in the present case, the plea alleging
     that the statement of reasons was inadequate could be                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     regarded as involving a question of public policy and be              European Communities by an order of the Pretura
     held to be admissible even though it was out of time,                 Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Vicenza, of
                                                                           22 April 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 — the plea in law upheld by the Court of First Instance is                30 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
     unfounded .                                                           proceedings pending before that court against Luciano
                                                                           Arcaro on the following questions :
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 11 .
                                                                           1 . Does point 8 (') of the present order for reference put
                                                                               forward a correct interpretation of the Community
                                                                               Directives 76/464/EEC ( 2 ) and 83/513/EEC (*) which
                                                                               Legislative Decree No 133/1992 aims to implement ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,                  2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, may, in the
 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 18 May                          light of a correct interpretation of Community law,
 1995 in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and                  direct effect be given to provisions of Community law —
 J. Scheres c.s. v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/                            while at the same time conflicting provisions of national
                 Ondernemingen te Roermond                                     law are disapplied — even though the position of the
                                                                               individual may thereby be impaired ?
                          ( Case C-167/95 )
                             ( 95/C 208/ 13 )
                                                                           3 . If question 2 is answered in the negative, what other
                                                                               steps may be taken, in the light of a correct
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        interpretation of Community law, in order to secure the
 European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechthsof,                        repeal under the national legal system of provisions


title: Case F-90/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2015 — Ayres de Abreu v EESC (Civil Service — Manifest inadmissibility — Representation by a lawyer — Applicant being a lawyer — Impossible for an applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third party)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2015 — Ayres de Abreu v EESC
   (Case F-90/15)
   ((Civil Service - Manifest inadmissibility - Representation by a lawyer - Applicant being a lawyer - Impossible for an applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third party))
   (2016/C 007/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonio Ayres de Abreu (Cascais, Portugal)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to allow the applicant to retire.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Ayres de Abreu shall bear his own costs.


               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/1

         (Text with EEA relevance)
   2009/C 90/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 82, 4.4.2009

      Past publications

      JO C 69 du 21.3.2009

      JO C 55 du 7.3.2009

      JO C 44 du 21.2.2009

      JO C 32 du 7.2.2009

      JO C 19 du 24.1.2009

      JO C 6 du 10.1.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu