title: Case T-91/00: Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Adolfo Kind against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 176/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.6.2000
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                  This action is directed against Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 174/2000 of 24 January 2000 repealing Council Regu-
                         (Case T-81/00)                                   lation (EEC) No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a definitive
                                                                          anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable
                        (2000/C 176/41)                                   pocket flint lighters originating in Japan (1).
                                                                          The applicants represent more than 75 % of Community
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       production of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters.
                                                                          They are suffering the consequences of failure to adopt the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 anti-dumping measures concerned.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associa-
                                                                          In support of their action the applicants allege:
ção Comercial de Aveiro, a non-profit-making organisation,
whose registered office is at Aveiro (Portugal), represented by
João Amaral e Almeida and Bernardo Diniz de Ayala, of the                — manifest error in the appreciation of the facts, having
Lisbon Bar.                                                                    regard to the total lack of correspondence between the
                                                                               results of the preparatory inquiry conducted by the
                                                                               Commission and the content of the provisions enacted by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the Council. It is pointed out in this connection that,
                                                                               according to the Commission’s investigations, the average
a) Declare admissible the present action and, accordingly,                     price of the products imported from Japan amounted to a
     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                      reduction of 22,9 % in relation to the average weighted
     Communities approving the claim for payment of the                        price of the Community producers, despite the upward
     balance relating to file 891038 P3 of 30 November 1999,                   effect which the anti-dumping duty of 35,7 % imposed by
     notified to the applicant on 27 January 2000 by way of                    Regulation No 3433/91 exerted on the prices charged;
     decision No 00723 of the DAFSE — Departamento para
     os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu;                                 — breach of Article 253 of the Treaty, inasmuch as there is
                                                                               plainly a conflict between the facts and the contents of the
b) Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      contested regulation. In that regard, they claim that the
                                                                               regulation does not reveal a single fact which might lend
                                                                               support to the repeal of the anti-dumping measures. On
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               the contrary, all the recitals in the preamble to the
                                                                               regulation emphasise the persistence of a state of grave
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those                   danger for the Community industry and the gradual loss
in Case T-80/00.                                                               of profitability recorded in that sector.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 22 of 27 January 2000, p. 16.
Action brought on 15 April 2000 by Bic S.A., Flamagas
S.A. and Swedish Match S.A. against Council of the
                        European Union
                                                                          Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Adolfo Kind against
                         (Case T-82/00)                                          the Commission of the European Communities
                        (2000/C 176/42)
                                                                                (Case T-91/00)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2000/C 176/43)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
Communities on 15 April 2000 by Bic S.A., Flamagas S.A. and
Swedish Match S.A., represented by Alessio Vianello.                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Adolfo Kind,
                                                                          represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 174/2000 of 24 January                 an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
     2000 and order the Council to pay the costs.                         Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10
                                                                           Rue Mathias Hardt.
— annul the decision of the Settlements Office of the Joint
     Sickness Insurance Scheme authorising reimbursement in
     respect of services provided to the applicant’s son, on the           The applicants claim that the Court should:
     ground that the authorisations in question were issued on
     a different basis from that argued by the applicant, with
     the support of all the relevant documents;                            — in accordance with Article 230 EC, annul the Commission
                                                                               decision notified by letter of 26 January 2000, No 02418,
— annul the consequent settlements on the further ground of                    received on 9 February 2000, signed by the Director-
     calculation errors;                                                       General for Agriculture, J.M. Silva Rodrı́guez;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           — and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
                                                                               Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a former Commission official, challenges the                — order the Commission to pay the costs in any event.
decision altering the legal basis for reimbursement of expenses
incurred by reason of the serious illness of a dependent son of
his. The applicant maintains that the son requires paramedical
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
assistance, having to be hospitalised in order to overcome
mental crises.
                                                                           At the end of November 1998, the applicant companies were
Until the end of 1998, the Commission reimbursed those                     allocated their reference quantity for 1999, based on the
expenses under Paragraph 1 of Title X of Annex 1 to the Rules              average quantity of bananas imported from third countries
on Sickness Insurance, that is to say as paramedical assistance.           in the three-year period 1994/1995/1996. They therefore
As from 1999, however, reimbursement of the same expenses,                 submitted applications for the quarterly certificates to be used
incurred in the same factual and legal context, was authorised             during 1999, and obtained certificates for the importation of
on the basis of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of Title X, that is to say          ACP bananas in the full amount requested. Subsequently
as nursing attendance at home.                                             finding themselves unable to use those certificates in the fourth
                                                                           quarter of 1999 they requested, in substitution, certificates
In support of his claims, the applicant argues:                            for importation from third countries and release from the
— that in the present case it was unlawful to apply Paragraph              guarantees provided. The present action is directed against the
     2(c) and (d) of Title X of Annex 1 to the Rules on Sickness           negative decision of the Commission on that point.
     Insurance (cost of nursing attendance at home);
— that the services in question are paramedical in nature,                 In support of their claims, the applicants argue:
     maintaining in that respect that determination of the care
     needed by individual patients is an exclusively medical               — Infringement by the Commission of Council Regulation
     decision;                                                                 (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common
                                                                               organization of the market in bananas (1), as amended by
— that in this case the professional qualification of a medical
                                                                               Regulation (EC) No 1637/98. By that latter regulation, the
     auxiliary is needed.
                                                                               Council intended to adapt the common organisation of
                                                                               the market to the rulings of the Panel and the Appellate
                                                                               Body of the World Trade Organisation, with the removal
                                                                               of the distinction between Category A operators and
                                                                               Category B operators, which was censured as contrary to
                                                                               GATT rules.
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Alessandrini Srl
and Others against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     — Illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of
                                                                               28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                          (Case T-93/00)                                       implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
                                                                               regarding imports of bananas into the Community (2). By
                         (2000/C 176/44)                                       that regulation, the Commission introduced measures
                                                                               ‘crystallising’ the situation created by Regulation No
                                                                               404/93, in its original version, in favour of operators in
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                            Category B, by fixing as the reference period for the
                                                                               allocation of the annual individual quantity the years
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      1994-1995-1996. Thanks to the choice of that reference
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     period, Category B operators may import bananas from
European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Alessandrini Srl                      third countries with the certificates obtained as operators
and Others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and                           of that category, whereas Category A operators are denied
Gabriele Donà, both of the Padua Bar, with an address for                      that possibility.


title: Case C-130/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Salvatore Barbagallo v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Salvatore Barbagallo v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina
   (Case C-130/07)
   (2007/C 117/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salvatore Barbagallo

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the judgment in Case C-207/04 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the Italian legislature should have extended to men the advantageous age-limit that applies to women?

               2.

               Must it be held in the present case that a rate equal to half of the rate applied for the taxation of severance pay must be applied to sums received as voluntary redundancy incentives by men who have passed the age of 50?

               3.

               Given that amounts paid by way of personal income tax do not form part of the taxpayer's salary since they are not paid by the employer in respect of the employment, and given that an amount paid by an employer to an employee as an incentive is not in the nature of pay, is it consistent with Community law to rule that the application of different age limits — namely 50 years of age for women and 55 years of age for men — is contrary to Community law, in light of the fact that Directive No 79/7 (2) permits the Member States to preserve different pensionable ages?

               4.

               Must Community law (Council Directive 76/207/EEC (3) of 9 February 1976, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex) be interpreted as precluding — or as not precluding — application of the relevant national rules that gave rise to the present case, with the effect that the national legislation (Article 17(4a) (now Article 19) of DPR No 917/86) must be regarded as incompatible — or compatible — with Community law?

      (1)  Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona [2005] ECR I-7453.

      (2)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

      (3)  OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.


title: Case C-431/14 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 16 July 2014 in Case T-52/12 Greece v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/27

      Appeal brought on 19 September 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 16 July 2014 in Case T-52/12 Greece v Commission
      (Case C-431/14 P)
      (2014/C 395/32)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and A. Vasilopoulou)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  grant the present appeal;

                  —

                  set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union in its entirety;

                  —

                  in accordance with the matters that have been more specifically set out, uphold the Hellenic Republic’s action;

                  —

                  annul the contested decision of the Commission;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The first plea is based on infringement of EU law or otherwise infringement of an essential procedural requirement. More specifically, by the first part of the plea, the Hellenic Republic pleads misinterpretation and misapplication by the General Court of the concept of resources which are attributed to the State, for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU, or otherwise an error as to the facts in the Court’s classification as such resources of the amount of the mandatory contributions which were paid by the farmers who were the recipients of the aid and insured under the Organismos Ellinikon Georgikon Asfaliseon (Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation) (ELGA), whilst, by the second part of the plea, it pleads that the General Court’s judgment was delivered in breach of an essential procedural requirement, in so far as in the judgment the General Court did not investigate, or state specific reasons, as to whether the sums which were paid as contributions by the farmers who were recipients of the State aid held to be unlawful conferred on those farmers an undue advantage under Article 107(1) TFEU, that is to say, an advantage liable to distort competition, or otherwise that the provision was misinterpreted and misapplied by reason of the implicit rejection of the submission in question.
      By the second plea, it is submitted that the judgment under appeal was delivered in breach of EU law and, more specifically, that Article 107(1) TFEU was misinterpreted and misapplied by the General Court, which held that the compensation payments in 2009 constituted a selective economic advantage for the recipients which was liable to threaten to distort competition and trade between Member States, without taking into account the exceptional circumstances in which the Greek economy found itself at the material time and continues to find itself.
      By the third plea, it is submitted (i) that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU because it limited the scope of that provision in respect of the disputed payments in 2009 to the terms of the Communication on the temporary Community framework, despite the exceptional circumstances in which the Greek economy found itself at the material time (first part of the third plea), and (ii) that the judgment under appeal contains insufficient grounds in so far as it does not examine at all the Hellenic Republic’s claim that the Commission decision is excessive in so far as it orders recovery of the aid in December 2011 (second part of the third plea).


title: Case C-442/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of Caixa Bank France against Ministère de l'économie, des finances et de l'industrie

text:
25.1.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/25
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
By inspecting 14,1 % (in 1999) and 12,2 % (in 2000) of vessels               Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
which entered its ports, France has inspected an insufficient                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
number of vessels entering its ports. Lack of staff cannot justify           each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
failure to fulfil obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 95/            required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
21/EC.                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 31 July 2001
                                                                             without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
                                                                             necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
                                                                             referred to in the Commission’s application.
( 1) OJ Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
     enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
     sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States,
     of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention        (1 ) OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77.
     and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
     (OJ 1995 L 157, p. 1).
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
                                                                             by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of
                                                                             Caixa Bank France against Ministère de l’économie, des
Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission                                               finances et de l’industrie
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-442/02)
                           (Case C-440/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/44)
                            (2003/C 19/43)
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État of
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                6 November 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 Decem-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December                   ber 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caixa Bank
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          France against Ministère de l’économie, des finances et de
represented by Maria Patakia and Claudio Loggi, acting as                    l’industrie on the following questions:
Agents.
                                                                             1.     As Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 20 March 2000 (1) is silent on the point,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         does the prohibition by a Member State of banking
                                                                                institutions duly established in its territory from remuner-
                                                                                ating sight accounts and other repayable funds constitute
—      Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                       an obstacle to freedom of establishment?
       within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 1999/42/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and              2.     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
                                                                                what kind of reasons of the public interest might in an
       of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism
       for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the                      appropriate case be relied on to justify such an obstacle?
       professional activities covered by the Directives on liberal-
       isation and transitional measures and supplementing the
       general systems for the recognition of qualifications, or,            (1 ) Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
       in any event, by failing to communicate them, the Italian                  Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit
       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                    of the business of credit institutions (OJ L 126 of 26.05.2000,
                                                                                p. 1).
       directive; and
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-581/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London Tribunal Centre (United Kingdom)) — EMI Group Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Sixth VAT Directive — Second sentence of Article 5(6) — Concept of samples — Concept of gifts of small value — Recorded music — Distribution free of charge for promotional purposes)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London Tribunal Centre (United Kingdom)) — EMI Group Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-581/08) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Second sentence of Article 5(6) - Concept of ‘samples’ - Concept of ‘gifts of small value’ - Recorded music - Distribution free of charge for promotional purposes)
   2010/C 317/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   VAT and Duties Tribunal, London Tribunal Centre

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EMI Group Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — Interpretation of Article 5(6) 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) — Applications of goods for the giving of samples or the making of gifts of small value for the purposes of the taxable person’s business — Concept of ‘sample’ — Essential characteristics — Music recordings in the form of CDs provided free for promotional purposes

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A ‘sample’, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 5(6) 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, is a specimen of a product which is intended to promote the sales of that product and which allows the characteristics and qualities of that product to be assessed without resulting in final consumption, other than where final consumption is inherent in such promotional transactions. That term cannot be limited, in a general way, by national legislation to specimens presented in a form which is not available for sale or to the first of a series of identical specimens given by a taxable person to the same recipient, unless that legislation allows account to be taken of the nature of the product represented and of the specific business context of each transaction in which those specimens are distributed.

               2.

               The concept of ‘gifts of small value’, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 5(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which fixes a monetary ceiling of the order of that established by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, namely GBP 50, for gifts made to the same person in the course of a 12-month period or forming part of a series or succession of gifts.

               3.

               The second sentence of Article 5(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 precludes national legislation which establishes a presumption that goods constituting ‘gifts of small value’ within the meaning that provision, distributed by a taxable person to different individuals having the same employer, are to be treated as having been made to the same person.

               4.

               The tax status of the recipient of samples has no bearing on the answers given to the other questions.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-534/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Andrea Gaiti and Others

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andrea Gaiti and Others
   (Case C-534/14)
   (2015/C 034/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bergamo

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Andrea Gaiti, Sidi Amidou Billa, Joseph Arasomwan, Giuseppe Carissimi, Sahabou Songne

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past?

               2)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates

               3)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2001 in Case C-169/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (Article 6(1)(d), last sentence, of Directive 76/768/EEC, as amended by Directive 93/35/EEC — Prescribed labelling "impossible for practical reasons" — Justification for putting abbreviated forms of compulsory warnings on the containers and packaging of cosmetic products — Information provided in nine languages in the interests of greater flexibility in the marketing of cosmetic products)

text:
10.11.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 317/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
                                                                                known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and
                                                                                Hydro-Réalisations SARL jointly and severally to pay the
                         (Third Chamber)                                           Commission of the European Communities the sum of
                                                                                EUR 35 404,78, together with contractual interest with effect
                        of 2 October 2001                                          from 30 October 1998 until discharge of the debt in full.
                                                                             3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application by SIVU du plan
in Case C-172/97 OP: SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du                            d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise known as SIVU du pays
Lot, otherwise known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la                               d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot.
Vallée du Lot v Commission of the European Communi-                          4.    Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
             ties and Hydro-Réalisations SARL (1)                                  known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities to bear their own
                                                                                costs in this application.
(Arbitration clause — Non-performance of a contract —
    Proceedings to have a judgment by default set aside)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                          (2001/C 317/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                   of 13 September 2001
                                                                             in Case C-169/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-172/97 OP: SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot,                 the Bundesgerichtshof): Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co.
otherwise known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot,               KG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs
established in La Canourgue (France) (Avocat: T. Vernhet) —                                                    eV (1)
application to have the judgment by default delivered by the
Court of Justice of the European Communities (Third Chamber)                 (Article 6(1)(d), last sentence, of Directive 76/768/EEC, as
on 10 June 1999 in Case C-172/97 Commission v SIVU and                       amended by Directive 93/35/EEC — Prescribed labelling
Hydro-Réalisations [1999] ECR I-3363 set aside, the other                    ‘impossible for practical reasons’ — Justification for putting
parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                 abbreviated forms of compulsory warnings on the containers
Communities, (Agents: initially R.B. Wainwright and O. Couv-                 and packaging of cosmetic products — Information provided
ert-Castéra, and, subsequently, R.B. Wainwright and J.-F. Pas-               in nine languages in the interests of greater flexibility in the
quier) and Hydro-Réalisations SARL, established in Rodez                                      marketing of cosmetic products)
(France) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-
                                                                                (2001/C 317/02)
mann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)
and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                                     (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 October 2001, in which
it:                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment by            In Case C-169/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 of
      default of 10 June 1999 in Case C-172/97 Commission v                  the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a
      SIVU and Hydro-Réalisations.                                           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.11.2001
court between Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG and                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbg eV — on                       court between Rudy Grzelczyk and Centre public d’aide sociale
the interpretation of the last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of                d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the                          Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) and Council Directive
cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by                     93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for
Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151,                  students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — the Court, composed of:
p. 32), in conjunction with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty              G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet
(now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — the                       and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward.
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                 (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                     Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                  Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
H.A: Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             20 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
a judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
It is not ‘impossible for practical reasons’, within the meaning of the      EC and 17 EC) preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social
last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of          benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the
27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                  case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where
States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive        they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of
93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, to set out the compulsory warnings                Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on the
in full on the container and packaging of a cosmetic product in the          freedom of movement for workers within the Community when no
language or languages prescribed in the Member State in which it is          such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State.
to be marketed, where the producer or distributor wishes to label the
product in nine languages, including eight official languages of the
Community, for economic considerations and in order to facilitate the
movement of the product within the Community, and this entails               (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
abbreviating those warnings on the container and packaging.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 20 September 2001                                                       of 27 September 2001
in Case C-184/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles): Rudy Grzelczyk                         the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzoll-
v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-                                              amt Bremerhaven (1)
                               Neuve (1)
(Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive                         Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment
93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National                       — Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity —
legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allow-                    Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs
ance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC)                           declaration — Concept of ‘special situation’)
No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign
student who has met his own living expenses during the first                                           (2001/C 317/04)
                         years of his studies)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2001/C 317/03)
                     (Language of the case: French)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-253/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary
In Case C-184/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du                      Bacardi GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven — on the
travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles), (Belgium) for           interpretation of Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial Tribunal, Southampton (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 23 November 1995, in the case of James Paul Barker against Service Children's Schools (Case C-374/95)

text:
3 . 2 . 96                  EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 31 / 11
Ministero delle Finanze ( Ministry of Finance ) and the                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial
Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero ( Ministry of Foreign                  Tribunal, Southampton ( United Kingdom ), by order of that
Trade ) on the following questions :                                        court of 23 November 1995 , in the case of James Paul
                                                                                Barker against Service Children's Schools
                                                                                ( Case C-3 74/95
1 . Should that part of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No                                                   ( 96/C 31 /21 )
       404/93 (') which limits the right to import Somali
       bananas — the so-called right of access, as recognized by
       the Lome Convention of 15 December 1989 , Protocol 5                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       thereto and the Joint Declaration contained in                       European Communities by an order of the Industrial
       Annex LXXIV to the Convention — be considered                        Tribunal,        Southampton          ( United Kingdom ),    of
       valid , in particular inasmuch as it:                                23 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                            Registry on 30 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the case of James Paul Barker against Service Children 's
       ( a ) establishes different import arrangements for                  Schools, on the following questions :
              traditional bananas, non-traditional bananas and
              bananas in excess of the quota set for that purpose           1 . Do the provisions of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
              and thus imposes quantitative restrictions;                        9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle
                                                                                of equal treatment for men and women as regards access
       ( b ) imposes the requirement to obtain an import                         to employment, vocational training and promotion, and
              document and to lodge a security for that purpose                  working conditions ( l ) permit a Member State to
              — a document which is not purely for statistical                   exclude from the measures required by Article 3 of the
              purposes and is subject to conditions that are                     said Directive, equal treatment ( as regards access to
              onerous and difficult to satisfy;                                  employment ) where the employment in question is to be
                                                                                at an establishment outside the territory of the Member
                                                                                State ?
       ( c ) imposes a customs duty of ECU 750 per tonne for
              bananas in excess of the tariff quota ?                       2 . If so, does that permit such exclusion where the
                                                                                prospective employer is the Member State itself?
2 . Should those parts of Commission Regulations ( EEC )                    3 . Also, if so, does that permit such exclusion where the
       Nos 1442/93 ( 2 ) and 1443/93 ( 3 ), as amended and                       prospective employment is in another Member State ?
       supplemented by later regulations, which limit, reduce
       or restrict unnecessarily and in a disproportionate                  (') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
       manner in relation to the objective pursued the right of
       access of Somali bananas, as guaranteed by the
       Convention referred to in Question 1 and by Council
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , be considered valid, in
       particular inasmuch as they :
                                                                            Action brought on 30 November 1995 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Hellenic
        ( a ) set the final date for the submission of applications                                         Republic
              for import licences up to three months and three                                         Case C-375/95 )
              weeks before the transaction and limit the period
              for submitting applications to one ( full ) week on                                        ( 96/C 31 /22
              only four occasions a year;
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice on 30 November 1995 by the
        ( b ) provide, in the event of non-compliance with the              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
              deadline , for forfeiture , in all cases, of the right to     Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser to the Commission,
              import for an entire quarter, without laying down             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
               specific rules or derogations for situations of force         Carlo Gomez de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service,
              majeure, unforeseeable circumstances and similar              Wagner Centre .
               situations ;
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
        ( c ) make the issue of the licence subject to the prior
               deposit of a security ?                                       1 . declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force in
                                                                                connection with the taxation of imported second-hand
                                                                                cars
0 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 142 , 12 . 6 . 1993 , p . 6 .                                       ( a ) Article 1 of Law No 363/1976 ( as amended by Law
 ( 3 ) OJ No L 142 , 12 . 6 . 1993 , t5 . 16 .                                          No 1676/1986 ) on the calculation, in connection
                                                                                with the special consumption tax, of the taxable
                                                                                value, with a deduction of only 5 % for each year of
                                                                                use, up to a maximum of 20% , from the selling
                                                                                price of equivalent new vehicles; and


title: Case T-774/14: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2016 — Ica Foods v EUIPO — San Lucio (GROK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/29

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2016 — Ica Foods v EUIPO — San Lucio (GROK)
   (Case T-774/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 053/35)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ica Foods SpA (Pomezia, Italy) (represented by: A. Nespega, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: San Lucio Srl (San Gervasio Bresciano, Italy) (represented by: F. Sangiacomo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2014 (Case R 1815/2013-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between San Lucio Srl and Ica Foods SpA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to rule on the action.

               2.

               Ica Foods SpA and San Lucio Srl shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case T-429/09: Action brought on 21 October 2009 — Campailla v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/42

      Action brought on 21 October 2009 — Campailla v Commission
      (Case T-429/09)
      (2010/C 161/66)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Massimo Campailla (Boulogne-sur-Mer, France) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Order the Commission to make good damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s refusal to take measures following his complaint regarding the violation of his fundamental rights by the Cameroon authorities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the present action, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission decisions, contained in letter D3 *3/2004/D/4809 of 30 July 2004 and in letter D3 D*3/2004/D/5438 of 9 September 2004, sent to the applicant, in which the Commission refused to take measures following his complaint regarding the violation of his fundamental rights by the Cameroon authorities.
      In support of his action, the applicant raises pleas alleging the unlawfulness of the decision as a result of distortion the facts and misuse of powers and the infringement of provisions and principles of the EC Treaty and EU Treaty as well as fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (inter alia: principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, sound administration, non-discrimination, good governance, compliance with the essential procedural requirements, prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).


20150731013616652015/C 270/202582015CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150601161721Case C-258/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1610120150601EN0020161172Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias
   (Case C-258/15)2015/C 270/20Language of the case: Spanish
      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gorka Salaberria Sorondo

      Defendant: Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias

      Question referred

   Is the setting of a maximum age of 35 years as a condition for participation in the selection process for recruitment to the post of officer of the police force of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country (Policía Autónoma Vasca) compatible with the interpretation of Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (
         1
      ) of 27 November 2000?
   (
         1
      )	Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 September 2002 in Case C-392/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken mbH (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Capital duty — Interest-free loans granted by members — Profit and loss transfer agreement)

text:
9.11.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 274/13
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
                      of 12 September 2002
                                                                            in Case C-392/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v
in Case C-351/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durch-
            the vakuutusoikeus): Pirkko Niemi (1)                           führung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken
                                                                                mbH (1)
(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —                        (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Capital duty
Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117                 — Interest-free loans granted by members — Profit and loss
to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136                                            transfer agreement)
EC to 143 EC) or Directive 79/7/EEC — Concept of ‘pay’ —
        Retirement pension scheme for public servants)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/21)
                          (2002/C 274/20)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: Finnish)                                              in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-392/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            Finanzamt Hannover-Nord and Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur
                                                                            Beratung und Durchführung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei
                                                                            Kernkraftwerken mbH, on the interpretation of Article 4(2)(b)
In Case C-351/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
EC by the vakuutusoikeus (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
the proceedings brought by Pirkko Niemi on the interpretation
                                                                            Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive
of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC
Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and                 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23), the
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                            the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen
progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                            (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6,
                                                                            General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
p. 24), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D. A. O. Edward,                     has given a judgment on 17 September 2002, in which it has
                                                                            ruled:
M. Wathelet and C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
has given a judgment on 12 September 2002, in which it has                  Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
ruled:                                                                      concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
                                                                            Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted
                                                                            as not precluding the charging of capital duty on the amount of
A pension such as that paid under the Valtion eläkelaki (State              interest saved by a company by virtue of an interest-free loan granted
Pensions Law) 280/1966 as amended by Law 638/1994 falls                     to it by its members where a profit and loss transfer agreement was
within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to           entered into by the members and the company before the loan was
120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143           granted, if the interest thereby saved has durably increased the
EC).                                                                        company’s assets. It is for the national court to determine, in the light
                                                                            of all the characteristics of the transaction at issue, whether, and if so
                                                                            to what extent, the interest saved has in fact had that effect.
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.


title: Case T-64/12: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission (Action for annulment — Request seeking to obtain the transmission to the French competition authority of certain documents contained in the Commission’s file relating to competition proceedings concerning the European market for consumer detergents — Use in the context of national proceedings concerning the French detergents sector — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/20

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission
   (Case T-64/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Request seeking to obtain the transmission to the French competition authority of certain documents contained in the Commission’s file relating to competition proceedings concerning the European market for consumer detergents - Use in the context of national proceedings concerning the French detergents sector - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 129/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) and Henkel France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: R. Polley, T. Kuhn, F. Brunet and É. Paroche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 7 December 2011 (Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — and Case 09/0007 F) whereby the Commission refused to act on the applicants’ request seeking the transmission to the French competition authority, in the context of Case 09/0007 F concerning the French detergents sector, of several documents produced in Case COMP/39.579, and, secondly, for an order by the General Court requiring the Commission to authorise the applicants to rely on the documents at issue in the proceedings before the French competition authority or before the competent French court in the context of an appeal against the decision of the French competition authority, and for any other measure that the Court deems appropriate.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Unilever PLC and Unilever NV.

               3.

               Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and Henkel France shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-254/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Stayer Ibérica v OHIM — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (STAYER) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark STAYER — Earlier international word mark STAYER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Stayer Ibérica v OHIM — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (STAYER)
   (Case T-254/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark STAYER - Earlier international word mark STAYER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 236/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2013 (Case R 2196/2011-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ and Stayer Ibérica, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 March 2013 (Case R 2196/2011-2) to the extent that it has declared the Community figurative mark STAYER invalid in respect of ‘parts of cutting and polishing diamond machines; bits and cutting wheels for the following industries: marble, granite, stone, clay, slabs, tiles and brick, and, in general terms, cutting tools as parts of the equipment included in Class 7’ in Class 7 and ‘hand held abrasive items (wheels and grinding wheels)’ in Class 8;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM, Stayer Ibérica, SA and ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-500/07: Action brought on 27 December 2007 — Republic of Bulgaria v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/51

         Action brought on 27 December 2007 — Republic of Bulgaria v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-500/07)
   (2008/C 64/83)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: Anani Anaviev, Daniela Drambozova and Elina Petranova)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               on the basis of Article 230 EC, to annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(2007) 5256 final of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for 2007 for the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions allowances, which was adopted by Bulgaria pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,
               alternatively,

               —

               on the basis of Article 230 EC, to annul Commission Decision C(2007) 5256 final of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for 2007 for the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions allowances, which was adopted by Bulgaria pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to the extent that that decision specifies the total number of allowances to be allocated,

               —

               to order the Commission of the European Communities to bear the costs incurred by the Republic of Bulgaria in connection with the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the contested Commission Decision C(2007) 5256 final of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for 2007 for the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions allowances should be annulled in whole or in part for the following reasons:
   Substantial procedural irregularities
   The Commission rejected the Bulgarian national allocation plan, without providing adequate reasons for doing so, on the basis that the plan failed to satisfy criteria 1, 2, 3 and 10 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC (1). In so doing, it infringed Article 253 EC.
   The contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the period laid down in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.
   Prior to the adoption of the decision, the Commission did not give Bulgaria the opportunity to present its objections to the national allocation plan being assessed on the basis of the latest version of the PRIMES model. In so doing, it infringed the right to a fair hearing.
   Infringement of the EC Treaty or of a rule of law relating to its application
   Article 9(1) and (3), together with Article 11(1), of Directive 2003/87/EC provides for the Member States to have sole competence to determine the total quantity of emissions allowances. The Commission is to monitor the application of the criteria set out in Annex III to the Directive, but is, however, not entitled to determine the total quantity of the allowances without reference to the national allocation plan produced by the Member States. The Commission exceeded its powers of review under the directive, since it substituted for the methodology adopted by Bulgaria, which satisfied the criteria laid down in Annex III, a methodology which was unsuited to assessing the Bulgarian economy and failed to comply with some of the criteria.
   The Commission assessed the Bulgarian national allocation plan on the basis of the latest version of the PRIMES model, the data for which were made available to Bulgaria only after the adoption of the contested decision. The Commission accordingly infringed the principle of loyal cooperation.
   In assessing the national allocation plan under the PRIMES model, the Commission did not investigate the Bulgarian national allocation plan with reference to the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC. In applying the PRIMES model to the assessment of the Bulgarian national allocation plan, the Commission wrongly concluded that the plan was incompatible with criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III to the directive. The rejection of the plan and the reduction of the total quantity of allowances to be allocated by 20 % has led to a position where Bulgarian operators of installations are not put in the same position as other operators in the Community's trading system. The Commission accordingly infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
   Having regard to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-374/04, the Commission infringed the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, since it did not apply the instruments adopted by it pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC to their full extent in assessing the Bulgarian national allocation plan. The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations was infringed because the Bulgarian national allocation plan was assessed by reference to the latest version of the PRIMES model, the data for which were made available to Bulgaria only after the adoption of the contested decision.
   The principle of legal certainty was infringed because the Commission had recourse to a private document when assessing the Bulgarian national allocation plan.
   The principle of sound administration was infringed because, in assessing the Bulgarian national allocation plan in relation to its compatibility with criteria 1, 2, and 3 laid down in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission did not attentively and objectively investigate all relevant economic and ecological factors.
   The Commission unlawfully applied the instruments which it adopted pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC in assessing the Bulgarian national allocation plan. In so doing, it infringed criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 of Annex III to Directive 2003/78/EC.

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


title: Case C-194/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — AC Treuhand AG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European tin stabiliser and ESBO/esters heat stabiliser markets — Article 81(1) EC — Scope — Consultancy firm not operating on the relevant markets — Definition of ‘agreement between undertakings’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Calculation of the amount of fines — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — AC Treuhand AG v European Commission
   (Case C-194/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European tin stabiliser and ESBO/esters heat stabiliser markets - Article 81(1) EC - Scope - Consultancy firm not operating on the relevant markets - Definition of ‘agreement between undertakings’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Calculation of the amount of fines - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 414/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: AC Treuhand AG (represented by: C. Steinle, I. Bodenstein and C. von Köckritz, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Action brought on 28 April 1995 by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-110/95)

text:
 22 . 7. 95            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 189/17
Article 1 of the Decision — the President of the Court of                On 23 November 1994, after a protracted procedure, the
First Instance made an order on 12 May 1995 the operative                applicant, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, called
part of which is as follows :                                            on the Commission to act, and to adopt a definitive position
                                                                         on the complaint as far as Article 85 was concerned . On
                                                                         15 February 1 995 , not having received any decision from
 1 , the applications for interim measures are dismissed;                the Commission, the applicant brought before the Court of
                                                                         First Instance an action pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty
2,    the costs are reserved.                                            against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ).
                                                                         On 17 February 1 995 , the Commission adopted Decision
                                                                         SG(95 ) D/1790 rejecting, as regards Article 85 of the EC
 0 ) OJ No L 354 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      Treaty, the complaint submitted by the applicant (the
                                                                         contested decision ).
                                                                         The applicant submits that the contested Decision must be
                                                                         annulled for the following reasons :
Action brought on 28 April 1995 by International Express
Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the Commission of the                — infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, in that
                    European Communities                                     the Commission exceeded its discretion, committing
                                                                             an error of law in not condemning a blatantly
                        ( Case T-110/95 )                                    anti-competitive agreement,
                          ( 95/C 189/36 )
                                                                         — infringement of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 17/62 of
                (Language of the case: English)                              Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission
                                                                             granted a de facto exemption from the competition rules
An action against the Commission of the European                             even though it failed to comply with the conditions
Communities was brought before the Court of First                            relating to form and to substance set out in those
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1995 by                     provisions,
International Express Carriers Conference ( IECC ),
represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derene,                 — breach of certain rules of law relating to the application
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                    of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission committed
of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                        errors of law and manifest errors of appraisal of the facts
L-1650 Luxembourg.                                                           of the case in implementing the legal principles
                                                                             expounded by the Court of First Instance, inasmuch as,
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 in the circumstances of this case, the Commission was
                                                                             not entitled to rely upon the Community interest in
— annul Commission Decision SG(95 ) D/1790 of                                order to reject the complaint, or, if it is entitled to do so,
     17 February 1995 ( Case No EV/32.791 — Remail ),                        it exercised that right incorrectly,
— order such further or other relief as the Court considers             — misuse of powers, in that the Commission's main
     appropriate in order for the Commission to comply with                  purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to attain
     Article 176 of the EC Treaty,                                           political objectives,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty, in that the
                                                                             Commission failed in its decision to give adequate
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          reasons as to the alleged lack of Community interest in
                                                                             the adoption of a decision imposing a prohibition and as
The applicant, a professional organization composed of                       to the proposition that the positive effects of the Reims
certain important private express companies, filed with the                  agreement would be hampered by such a decision,
Commission, on 13 July 1988 , a complaint under
Article 3 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 concerning the
infringement ( i ) of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty by certain      — breach of certain general principles of Community law,
European public postal operators and ( ii ) of Article 86 of the             in that, in adopting the decision, the Commission
Treaty by two post offices which relied upon a market                        violated the principles of legal certainty and of the
allocation    scheme     set   out     in  the  Universal   Postal           protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
Convention. The conduct in question of the post offices                      non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality and
named in the complaint was designed to suppress or restrain                  the principle of sound administration.
'remail' competition, a practice whereby a mailer prepares
international mail in one country but posts the mail not with
the post office of that country but with a post office located
in another country.


title: Case T-367/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — August Storck v EUIPO — Chiquita Brands (Fruitfuls) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Fruitfuls — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/15

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — August Storck v EUIPO — Chiquita Brands (Fruitfuls)
      (Case T-367/14) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Fruitfuls - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 441/19)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A.-C. Richter, P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and T. Reher, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: represented initially by A. Poch, and subsequently by G. Schneider and D. Gája and finally by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Chiquita Brands LLC (Charlotte, North Carolina, United States of America) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1580/2013-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Chiquita Brands and August Storck.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1580/2013-5) in so far as it confirmed the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the revocation of the contested mark as regards ‘confectionery’ included in Class 30 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-333/12: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-333/12) (1)

   2013/C 129/22
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


21.6.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/35
—       Reliability of the on-the-spot checks, in particular                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
        adequate measurement of agricultural land. In its third             Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
        plea in law, Germany rebuts the Commission’s complaint              case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A.
        that Brandenburg did not adequately measure land in the                                   and COSPALAT F.V.G.
        course of on-the-spot checks, which constitutes a breach
        of Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 ( 3). That                                     (Case C-185/03)
        complaint is based, it submits, on factually and legally
        incorrect premisses.                                                                          (2003/C 146/57)
—       Adequate expansion of the sample coverage of on-the-
        spot checks. In its fourth plea in law, Germany deals with          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        the complaint that Brandenburg did not adequately                   European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo
        expand the required sample coverage of the on-the-spot              (Tolmezzo District Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the
        checks within the holdings visited.                                 Court Registry on 5 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                            case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A. and
                                                                            COSPALAT F.V.G. on the following question:
—       The representative yields for non-food crops on set-aside
        land were assessed at a sufficiently high level. In its fifth       Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
        plea in law, Germany demonstrates that the Commission’s
                                                                            1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 ( 2) of
        complaint — that the representative yields of renewable             28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
        raw materials were assessed at too low a level — is                 additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
        unjustified.
                                                                            an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
                                                                            liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
—       Lack of precision concerning the financial years to which           exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
        expenditure is imputed. In its sixth plea in law, the level
        of expenditure imputed by the decision is contested. The            (1 ) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
        Commission’s decision is in part imprecise and is invalid           (2 ) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
        in so far as its operative part and the statements in the
        Annex concerning an amount of EUR 12 927 107 are
        inconsiystent. In the 1999 and 2000 financial years, the
        Land of Brandenburg incurred expenditure for crop years
        1999 and 2000 of EUR 270 387 968. Applying the flat
        rate of 5 % imposed by the Commission, which is                             Removal from the register of Case C-302/01 ( 1)
        being contested, that results in an imputed amount of
        EUR 13 519 398. However, an amount of
                                                                                (2003/C 146/58)
        EUR 262 446 505 was imputed. Consequently an
        amount of EUR 12 927 107 was wrongly imputed.
                                                                            By order of 6 February 2003 the President of the Court of
—       Incorrect risk assessment. Finally, in its seventh plea in          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        law, it is argued that the declared flat-rate imputation of         from the register of Case C-302/01: Commission of the
        risk of 5 % is defective simply because no systematic               European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
        administrative or checking errors were the subject of
        complaint in Brandenburg in the relevant period. More-
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
        over, the calculation of the alleged loss to the EAGGF was
        made using inappropriate methods and arrived at in
        breach of Article 10 EC.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the                     Removal from the register of Case C-86/02 (1)
     financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,
     p. 103).                                                                                (2003/C 146/59)
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
     down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation
     (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the
     accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).         By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December                  of the European Communities ordered the removal from
     1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated            the register of Case C-86/02: Commission of the European
     administration and control system for certain Community aid            Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
     schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36).
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Case T-752/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Combaro v Commission (Customs union — Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Latvia — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Reimbursement and remission of import duties — Import of woven linen fabrics from Latvia — Fairness clause — Special situation — Deception or obvious negligence — Commission decision finding that the remission of import duties was not justified)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Combaro v Commission
   (Case T-752/14) (1)

   ((Customs union - Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Latvia - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Reimbursement and remission of import duties - Import of woven linen fabrics from Latvia - Fairness clause - Special situation - Deception or obvious negligence - Commission decision finding that the remission of import duties was not justified))
   (2017/C 283/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Combaro SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4908 final of 16 July 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 461 415,62.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 4908 final of 16 July 2014 rejecting Combaro SA’s request for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 461 415,62;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Combaro.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-486/10: Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Iberdrola v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/36

         Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Iberdrola v Commission
   (Case T-486/10) (1)

   2011/C 238/63
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-567/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 5 November 2013 — Nóra Baczó and János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt.

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 5 November 2013 — Nóra Baczó and János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt.
      (Case C-567/13)
      (2014/C 71/02)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Törvényszék

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai

         Defendant: Raiffeisen Bank Zrt.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In proceedings brought before a local court for a declaration of the invalidity of a contract (standard contract terms), in which the consumer also seeks in his application a declaration of the unfairness of a term of the contract at issue in the proceedings, and thereby provides a basis for the jurisdiction of another court, the county court (törvényszék), is there a disadvantage for the consumer, given that, in proceedings brought by the other party to the contract, the consumer can rely on the unfairness of a contract term (1) before the local court, and transfer to the county court burdens the consumer with higher costs?

                  2.

                  Would the situation be more equal if, in proceedings brought by the consumer before the local court for a declaration of the invalidity of a contract, the consumer were able also to rely on the unfairness of a term of the contract, as a result of which that local court would have jurisdiction?

         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts; OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.