title: Case T-142/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — ECZG v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/33

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — ECZG v Commission
   (Case T-142/06)
   (2006/C 178/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Elektrociepłownia Zielona Góra S.A. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, C. Arhold and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission to open the formal investigation procedure in Case State Aid C 43/2005 (ex N 99/2005) — Polish Stranded Costs — of 23 November 2005, or in the alternative, annul the decision as far as the PPA (power purchase agreement) concluded by the applicant is concerned;

               —

               award the applicant the costs of the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a heat and power plant operator located in Poland. In the contested decision, the Commission decided to open a formal investigation procedure into alleged new State aid in the form of power purchase agreements concluded between power generators in Poland and the State owned network operator ‘PSE’ (1).
   In support of its application, the applicant argues that the Commission had no jurisdiction to open a formal investigation procedure regarding aid measures granted before the accession of Poland to the European Union, which are not applicable after the date of accession. In doing so, the Commission violated the general legal principles of non-retroactivity and of the protection of legitimate expectations.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has committed an error of law and of appreciation in classifying the measure as a new state aid. First, the Commission omitted to assess the measure in the light of the factual and legal circumstances existing at the time the agreements were concluded. Secondly, the Commission inadequately assessed the notion of economic advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC by doing a global examination of all power purchase agreements instead of doing an individual examination. Thirdly, the Commission did not take into account the fact that, at the time the electricity markets of the Member States were opened to competition, the agreement concluded by the applicant could not distort competition in the common market as Poland was not yet a Member State. Finally, the applicant submits that the aid constitutes not new state aid, but existing aid according to both the Accession Treaty and the case law, by virtue of which aid already in application in a market closed to competition until its liberalisation is to be regarded as existing aid from the time of liberalisation. The applicant further states that the Commission did not examine whether the agreement in question was still in force after the Polish accession.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned and infringes Article 253 EC.

      (1)  State aid — Poland — State aid No C 43/2005 (ex N 99/2005) — Polish Stranded Costs — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (OJ C 52, 2006, p. 8).


title: Case F-3/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — Frieberger and Vallin v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Regulation No 1023/2013 — Article 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Raising of the retirement age — Repayment of contributions to the EU pension scheme — Article 26 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Recalculation of the bonus relating to pension rights)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — Frieberger and Vallin v Commission
   (Case F-3/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation No 1023/2013 - Article 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Raising of the retirement age - Repayment of contributions to the EU pension scheme - Article 26 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Recalculation of the bonus relating to pension rights))
   (2016/C 136/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jürgen Frieberger (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) and Benjamin Vallin (Saint-Gilles, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Taneva, Agents)

      Re:

   The annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting the applicants’ requests for repayment of a portion of the contributions to the European Union pension scheme which were deducted from their pay and the request for reassessment of the bonus relating to the transfer of pension rights, acquired before their entry into service, to the EU scheme.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 26 March 2014 rejecting Mr Frieberger’s request of 17 December 2013 in so far as he sought by that request to obtain a recalculation of the bonus relating to his pension rights transferred to the European Union pension scheme;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it was brought by Mr Vallin against the European Commission’s decision of 13 March 2014 inasmuch as that decision allegedly rejected a request seeking a recalculation of the bonus relating to pension rights transferred to the European Union pension scheme;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Declares that the parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23/3/2015, p. 25.


title: Case C-263/07: Action brought on 1 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/12

         Action brought on 1 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-263/07)
   (2007/C 211/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing correctly to transpose Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) and Annex I thereto, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission raises three complaints in support of its action.
   In its first complaint, it alleges, firstly, that the defendant incorrectly transposed Article 9(4) of Directive 96/61 in that it supplemented the — correct — definition of ‘best available techniques’ with a comment relating to the ‘excessive costs’ of those techniques which does not appear in the Directive. Although the Directive does indeed stipulate that the best available techniques imply techniques perfected on a scale which permits their application, in the context of the industrial sector concerned, in economically and technically viable conditions, it does not permit the systematic exclusion of techniques whose applicability and availability would entail costs excessive by reference to establishments of average size and economically healthy in the same sector or a similar sector. Such precise requirements would go beyond what is laid down by the Directive in that regard.
   By its second complaint, the Commission then alleges that the defendant reduced the scope of the obligation to reconsider or update the permit conditions, laid down in Article 13(1) of the Directive, since, according to the terms of the national transposing provisions, those conditions are to be reconsidered only in three particular situations or where it is necessary, for which ‘appropriate reasons’ are to be given. Those terms are, once again, more restrictive than those of the Directive, which merely refers to periodic reconsideration and to updating ‘where necessary’ of the permit conditions.
   By its third complaint, the Commission alleges, finally, that the defendant incorrectly transposed Annex I to the Directive since the national transposing measures refer to ‘boilers with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW’ and not, as in category 1.1 in that Annex, to ‘combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW’. That category is wider than that of simple boilers.

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.


title: Case T-141/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/39

         Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM
   (Case T-141/16)
   (2016/C 191/51)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune)

      Defendant: IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE (Athens, Greece)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 105 416,47, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations on 1 July 2010 (2 %) plus 1 %, that is to say, at a total rate of 3 %, calculated from 6 July 2010 until the day on which that sum has been paid in full, less EUR 30 208 (which was paid by way of set-off on 4 September 2010);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action, brought before the General Court pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeks delivery of a judgment ordering the defendant to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 75 208,47, together with interest, in relation to contract FAIR-CT98-9544 for the project entitled ‘Development of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’.
   The European Commission pleads, as the principal legal basis, breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations. It submits in particular that the sum which was paid to the defendant pursuant to the contract at issue was not used to carry out any work relating to the contract and that the defendant has not adduced any relevant documentary evidence. In the alternative, the European Commission puts forward a claim of unjust enrichment of the defendant, as provided for in Articles 904 and 908 of the Civil Code.


title: Case T-23/12: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — MAF v EIOPA (Action for annulment — Languages — Publication by the EIOPA of consultative documents on its internet site exclusively in English — Non-actionable measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/31

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — MAF v EIOPA
   (Case T-23/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Languages - Publication by the EIOPA of consultative documents on its internet site exclusively in English - Non-actionable measures - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 45/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mutuelle des architectes français assurances (MAF) (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) (represented by: J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of an alleged decision of the EIOPA to publish information on its internet site exclusively in English and, specifically, to launch public consultations exclusively in that language and, secondly, of the alleged decision of the Executive Director of the EIOPA, of 16 January 2012, rejecting the MAF’s request for the withdrawal of the first alleged decision and the publication of the abovementioned consultations and all information on the EIOPA’s internet site in all the official languages of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Mutuelle des architectes français assurances (MAF) is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-205/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2008 — NewSoft Technology v OHIM — Soft (Presto! BizCard Reader) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Presto! BizCard Reader — Earlier national figurative marks Presto — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2008 — NewSoft Technology v OHIM — Soft (Presto! BizCard Reader)
   (Case T-205/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Presto! BizCard Reader - Earlier national figurative marks Presto - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 171/56)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: NewSoft Technology Corp. (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Dirksen-Schwanenland, U. von Sothen and M. Di Stefano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Soft, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Velázquez Ibáñez and P. Merino Baylos, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2006 (Case R 601/2005-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Soft, SA and NewSoft Technology Corp.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               NewSoft Technology Corp. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case T-258/09: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — i-content v OHIM (BETWIN) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark BETWIN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Equal treatment — Article 49 EC)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — i-content v OHIM (BETWIN)
   (Case T-258/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BETWIN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive nature - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Equal treatment - Article 49 EC)
   2011/C 238/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented initially by: A. Nordemann, and subsequently by: A. Nordemann and T. Boddien, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2009 (Case R 1528/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BETWIN as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2009 (Case R 1528/2008-4) in so far as concerns services other than the services of ‘conception and development of events, games, lotteries, contests, balls, drawings by lot, competitions of all kinds; gaming halls; operation of casinos; services to sports, games, betting and lottery establishments, including on and via the internet; provision of sport, games, betting and lottery equipment, including on and via the internet; operation of gaming halls; provision of interactive computer games; operation and organisation of casinos, games of chance, card games, bets, sports betting, games of skill; gaming machines; operation of casinos, operation of gaming halls; operation of betting and lottery centres of all kinds’ in Class 41 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, and services of ‘conception and development of events, games, lotteries, contests, balls, drawings by lot, competitions for business purposes, organisation of advertising’ in Class 35 of that Arrangement;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-540/14: Order of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT and PLAYSEATS)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/46

         Order of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT and PLAYSEATS)
   (Case T-540/14) (1)

   (2016/C 106/55)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-606/15: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 19 June 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/27

         Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 19 June 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-606/15) (1)

   (2017/C 300/31)
   Language of the case: Czech
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-194/07: Order of the President of the Court of 23 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SAVA e C. Srl, SIEME Srl, GRADED SpA v Mostra d'Oltremare SpA, Cofathec Servizi SpA and Others

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SAVA e C. Srl, SIEME Srl, GRADED SpA v Mostra d'Oltremare SpA, Cofathec Servizi SpA and Others
   (Case C-194/07) (1)

   (2008/C 209/61)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-124/96)

text:
No C 318/ 14          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
Article 3(11 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , as referred to       effects on SGA's supplies, to the point where the company's
in Regulation ( EC ) No 1475/95 .                                     future is in jeopardy and it may very soon be forced to cease
                                                                      operations .
The company seeks annulment of the Commission 's
decision of 5 June 1996 not to investigate its complaint
criticizing in particular the directions given and the pressure
applied by the Peugeot ( PSA ) group to the Peugeot and
Citroen dealers in other Member States, in order to prevent
them from supplying vehicles to agents and to partition the           Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Interporc Im- und
market, contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome .                Export GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-124/96 )
SGA maintains, first, that by refusing to act on its complaint,
the Commission has committed a manifest error of
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/28 )
assessment regarding the probative value of the evidence
produced . Furthermore, in earlier correspondence with                                (Language of the case: German)
SGA, the Commission had already acknowledged the
probative value of some of the documents furnished by the             An action against the Commission of the European
company .                                                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 9 August 1 996 by
                                                                      Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, Hamburg, represented by
According to SGA, the Commission also committed a                     Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address
manifest error of assessment with respect both to the alleged         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles,
lack of Community interest and to its own right to refuse to          of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8 rue Mathias Hardt .
call a halt to such a serious infringement as the partitioning
of the market. According to settled case-law, agreements
and practices designed to partition the market constitute             The applicant claims that the Court should :
infringements which are regarded as particularly serious .
Clauses, even if not in writing, for the elimination of exports       — annul the contested decision,
are equally unlawful , since their purpose is to prevent the
integration of the internal market, which is one of the               — declare that the Commission is not entitled to refuse
Treaty's fundamental objectives . It follows that, in the case            access to the documents specified in the letter of
of practices such as those described in the complaint, the                23 February 1996 from the applicant's representatives
Commission should have taken action .                                     to the Director General of DG VI,
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
SGA also argues that the Commission committed a manifest
error regarding its identification of the infringement's centre
of gravity and concerning the competence of the French                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
courts or authorities . According to the Commission , this
dispute's centre of gravity is in France, whereas it is really to     The applicant, one of the applicants in Case T-50/96 ,
be found in the Member States from which the re-export of             contests the Commission 's refusal to send it certain
vehicles by dealers in those States ought to respond to               documents concerning the decision of the Commission of
demand on the part of French consumers or agents; the                 26 January 1996 ('Hilton beef'), with which that action is
French manufacturer is endeavouring through its local                 concerned . The documents in question are the same as those
dealers to prevent those re-exports . The Commission is               in relation to which application has already been made in
therefore the authority competent to conduct an                       that other action for an order for their production by way of
investigation.                                                        a measure of organization of procedure .
                                                                      In the applicant's view, that refusal infringes both the code
SGA further argues that the Commission committed a                    of conduct for public access to documents of the Council
manifest error of assessment by refusing to adopt the interim         and of the Commission and Commission Decision 84/90/EC
measures sought in the complaint, the purpose of which was            of 8 February 1994 on public access to its documents . More
purely defensive and precautionary .                                  specifically, the defendant is not entitled, on the pretext of
                                                                      being required to apply a strict interpretation to the
                                                                      applicable provisions, to reduce the scope of the right to
As regards the action for damages , SGA points out that               access to its own documents to such an extent that that
when confronted with a file reporting, with supporting                fundamental right is rendered nugatory .
evidence, serious infringements whose damaging
consequences for the market, consumers and agents were                In the present case, in which the Commission is relying on its
undeniable, the Commission was obliged under Article 3 of             obligation to protect the public interest ( administration of
the Treaty and Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17 to               justice ), the defendant, as a public administrative authority
take measures to root out the cause of the damage . The               which is primarily required to act in the general interest,
Commission's refusal to act has had particularly detrimental          cannot apply a broad interpretation to that concept, since
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96         1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 318 / 15
otherwise the objectives which Decision 94/90/EC is                    The applicants submit that the prohibition laid down in
intended to achieve would not be attained . This is all the            Articles 2 ( b ) and 3 ( a ) of the Directive, in so far as they refer
more so in the present case, in which the non-production of            to the therapeutic use of beta-agonists in approved
the documents requested, which form the subject-matter of              veterinary medicinal products, will deprive them of their
an application for measures of organization of procedure in            right to manufacture and market the veterinary medicinal
another case, is contrary to the proper administration of              products in question for which they hold regular licences in
justice .                                                              conformity with applicable European rules . This
                                                                       interference with the applicants ' specific rights is not
In addition , the applicant asserts that there has been an             consistent with EC fundamental principles of law, such as
infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of               the principle of proportionality, the principles of legal
reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty .                     certainty and of legitimate expectations, and the principle of
                                                                       good administration .
                                                                       In this regard the applicants, while understanding the
                                                                       legitime interest of the Council and the Commission to
Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer Ingelheim                combat the illegal use of beta-agonists as bulk chemicals for
Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn Limited                       growing purposes, consider that a ban on the placing on the
  Partnership against the Council of the European Union                market of their veterinary medicinal products is not
                                                                       justified . Indeed, as a consequence of that ban :
                        ( Case T-125 /96
                          ( 96/C 318/29 )                              — animals are deprived of an essential product for the
                                                                            protection of their health ,
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       — the applicants are denied their legitimate right to
An action against the Council of the European Communities                   continue to market products which are praised by all
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       practitioners for their safety and quality .
European Communities on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn                     Such effects cannot be justified by the aim pursued by the
Limited Partnership, represented by Messer Denis                       Council when adopting the contested measure .
Waelbroeck and Denis Fosselard , of the Brussels Bar,
Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck & Kirkpatrick , 3                        Moreover, Article 43 of the EC Treaty has been violated, in
boulevard de l'Empereur, Brussels, with an address for                 so far as the European Parliament was consulted on a
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt &                       proposal which differed substantially from the text of
Medernach, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                    Directive 96/22/EC .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            (>) OJ No L 125 , 23 . 5 . 1996 , p . 3 .
— annul Articles 1 , 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive
      96/22/EC of 29 April 1 996 ( 1 ), in so far as they prohibit
      the placing on the market of veterinary medicinal
      products containing beta-agonists for administering for
      therapeutic purposes to animals the flesh and products
      of which are intended for human consumption ,                     Action brought on 12 August 1996 by Breda Fucine
                                                                        Meridionali SpA against the Commission of the European
— condemn the Community, as represented here by the                                                  Communities
      Council, to repair the damage suffered by them as a                                         ( Case T-126/96 )
      result of the contested measure,
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/30 )
 — order the Council to bear the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 The applicants are the sole significant producers of                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
 medicines based on beta-agonists of the kind affected by               Instance of the European Communities on 12 August 1996
 Directive 96/22/EC . According to them, Directive 96/22/EC             by Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA, whose registered office is
 targets specifically their products, which must be seen as             at Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
 having motivated the Community institutions in this                    Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for
 matter .
                                                                        service in Brussels at the Chambers of Antonio Tizzano, 36 ,
 The prohibition referred to in the contested Directive will , in       place du Grand Sablon .
 fact, prevent the administering of beta-agonists to treat
 respiratory disorders in food producing animals of any                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 species . The other common therapeutic use of beta-agonists ,
 i.e. inducing tocolysis in cows when calving, will continue to         — annul in whole or, in the alternative , in part ( as regards
 be authorized by the Directive .                                           the points referred to in this action ) the Commission's


title: Case T-250/06 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2008 — Ott and Others v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — Promotion for 2004 — Allocation of promotion points — General Implementing Provisions of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Plea of illegality — Substitution of grounds — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded — Dispute capable of being decided — Dismissal of the action)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2008 — Ott and Others v Commission
   (Case T-250/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - Promotion for 2004 - Allocation of promotion points - General Implementing Provisions of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Plea of illegality - Substitution of grounds - Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded - Dispute capable of being decided - Dismissal of the action)
   (2008/C 171/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Martial Ott (Oberanven, Luxembourg); Fernando Lopez Tola (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and Francis Weiler (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2006Ott and Others v Commission (Case F-87/05, not yet published in the ECR) seeking the annulment of that order.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               The order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2006 Ott and Others v Commission is annulled in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Mr Francis Weiler;

               2.

               For the rest, the appeal is dismissed;

               3.

               The cross-appeal is dismissed;

               4.

               The action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-87/05 is dismissed in so far as it was brought by Mr Francis Weiler;

               5.

               Mr Martial Ott, Mr Fernando Lopez Tola and Mr Francis Weiler shall bear their own costs in relation to the present instance and four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission. The Commission shall bear one fifth of its own costs in relation to the present instance;

               6.

               Mr Francis Weiler and the Commission shall bear their own costs in relation to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      (1)  OJ C 281 of 18.11.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 January 2004 in Case T-67/01: JCB Service v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Article 81 EC — Distribution agreements)

text:
3.4.2004                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 85/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 January 2004
                         of 11 December 2003
                                                                              in Case T-67/01: JCB Service v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-306/00: Conserve Italia Soc. coop. rl v Com-
            mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                               (Competition — Article 81 EC — Distribution agreements)
(Agriculture — EAGGF — Reduction of financial aid —
Statement of reasons — Error of assessment — Principle of                                                (2004/C 85/44)
                            proportionality)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                             (2004/C 85/43)
                                                                              In Case T-67/01, JCB Service, established in Rocester, Stafford-
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                         shire (United Kingdom), represented by R. Fowler QC, R. And-
                                                                              erson, barrister, L. Carstensen, solicitor, and initially by
                                                                              M. Israel, and, subsequently, by S. Smith, solicitors, with an
                                                                              address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
                                                                              European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and S. Rating):
                                                                              Application as a principal claim, for annulment of Commission
In case T-306/00: Conserve Italia Soc. coop. rl, established in               Decision 2002/190/EC of 21 December 2000 relating to a
San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy), represented by M. Averani,                     proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP.F.1/
A. Pisaneschi and S. Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for                  35.918 — JCB) (OJ 2002 L 69, p. 1), and, in the alternative,
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                     for partial annulment of that decision and corresponding
Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and M. Moretto) — appli-                     reduction of the fine imposed on JCB Service, the Court of
cation for annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 1752                      First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
of 11 July 2000 reducing aid from the Guidance Section of the                 President, J. Azizi and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
EAGGF for Project No 88.41.IT.002.0 entitled ‘Technical                       trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January
modernisation of an establishment processing products in the                  2004, in which it:
fruit and vegetable sector at Alseno (Piacenza)’ — the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-
                                                                              1.    Annuls Article 1(c), (d) and (e) and Article 3(d) and (e) of
Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges,
                                                                                Commission Decision 2002/190/EC of 21 December 2000
J. Plingers, Administrator, acting for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty
judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it:
                                                                                (Case COMP.F.1/35.918 — JCB);
                                                                              2.    Reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
1.     Annuls Commission Decision C(2000) 1752 of 11 July 2000                      Article 4 of Decision 2002/190 to EUR 30 million;
       reducing aid from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF for
       Project No 88.41.IT.002.0, entitled ‘Technical modernisation
       of an establishment processing products in the fruit and               3.    Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claims
       vegetable sector at Alseno (Piacenza)’;                                      seeking the production of certain documents on the court file
                                                                                declared non accessible during the administrative procedure;
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay four            4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
       fifths of those incurred by the applicant;
                                                                              5.    Orders the applicant to bear three quarters of its own costs;
3.     Orders the applicant to bear one fifth of its own costs.
                                                                              6.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and a quarter of
                                                                                the costs incurred by the applicant.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 186 of 30.06.2001.


title: Case T-37/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Meggle v OHIM — Clover (HiQ with trefoil) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Meggle v OHIM — Clover (HiQ with trefoil)
   (Case T-37/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 142/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Meggle AG (Wasserburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Clover Corporation Limited (Sydney, Australia)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2005 (Case R 1130/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Meggle AG and Clover Corporation Limited
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-44/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Kaučuk v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Participation in the cartel — Imputability of the offending conduct — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Kaučuk v Commission
   (Case T-44/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Participation in the cartel - Imputability of the offending conduct - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)
   2011/C 269/92
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaučuk a.s. (Kralupy nad Vltavou, Czech Republic) (represented initially by: M. Powell and K. Kuik, and subsequently by M. Powell, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and O. Weber, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, so far as Kaučuk a.s. is concerned, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Kaučuk.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it concerns Kaučuk a.s.;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-598/17: Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/27

         Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-598/17)
   (2017/C 357/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and P. Pucciariello, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present action, European Commission Implementing Decision No 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017, notified on the same date, on the exclusion from European Union financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy. (2)

   By that plea, the applicant challenges the application of the financial corrections imposed by the contested decision, in view of the inconsistency of the information.
   The applicant also challenges the quantification of those financial corrections, in so far as the actual amount set is disproportionate and clearly illogical, being significantly higher than any damage potentially resulting from the conduct imputed to the Italian authorities.

      (1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

      (2)  OJ L 209, 18.8.2005, p. 1.


title: Case T-446/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — CC v Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Errors in the management of the list of successful candidates — Non-contractual liability — Offers of further evidence — Material harm — Equal treatment — Distortion of the facts — Loss of an opportunity)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — CC v Parliament
   (Case T-446/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Errors in the management of the list of successful candidates - Non-contractual liability - Offers of further evidence - Material harm - Equal treatment - Distortion of the facts - Loss of an opportunity))
   (2017/C 195/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: CC (represented by: G. Maximini and C. Hölzer, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Despotopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV, EU:F:2016:165), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV), in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal, first, calculated the loss of opportunity for Ms CC to be recruited as a probationary official by the Council of the European Union by excluding the period from 16 February 2006 to 31 August 2007, and secondly, calculated the loss of opportunity for Ms CC to be recruited as a probationary official by the other institutions and bodies of the European Union using a different method from that which it used in relation to the Council;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Case C-2/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Sparekassernes Datacenter (SDC) v. Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13 B (d), points 3 to 5 - Exempt transactions)

text:
  16 . 8 . 97         Ien |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 252/1
                                                                      I
                                                               (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        accompanied by bona fide certificates of analysis
                         ( Second Chamber)                                    issued by research institutes duly authorized in the
                                                                              Member State of origin, provided that those controls
                            of 5 June 1997                                    are applied in a non-discriminatory manner, that they
in Case C-105/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     observe the principle of proportionality and that
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Ravenna ): Ditta Angelo                      account is taken, in particular, of the controls already
   Celestini v. Saar-Sektkellerei Faber GmbH &C Co. KG (M                     carried out in the Member State of origin.
 (Common organization of the market in wine — Control
of wines from another Member State — Method of testing                   2 . It is for the national court to determine, in accordance
oxygen isotopes in water using abundance ratio mass                           with the rules of procedure applicable in that Member
                             spectrometry)                                    State, whether the wine analysis method known as
                                                                              'determination of 0 18/0 16 abundance ratio of water in
                              97/C 252/01                                     wine ' is consistent with the criteria of accuracy,
                                                                              repeatability and reproducibility laid down in
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                             Article 74 (2) (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/
                                                                              87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of
                                                                              the market in wine.
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 132, 14 . 5 . 1994 .
In Case C-105/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di
Ravenna ( Civil and Criminal Court, Ravenna ) ( Italy ), for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Ditta Angelo Celestini and Saar
Sektkellerei     Faber     GmbH      &   Co .  KG    —    on   the                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty and                                         (Fifth Chamber)
of Article 74 ( 2 ) (c ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 822/
                                                                                of 5 June 1997
87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the
market in wine ( OJ No L 84, 27. 3 . 1987, p. 1 ), read in              in Case C-2/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
conjunction with Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 2676/                  the Østre Landsret): Sparekassernes Datacenter ( SDC ) v.
90 of 17 September 1990 determining Community                                                  Skatteministeriet ( ] )
methods for the analysis of wines ( OJ No L 272, 3 . 10 .
1990, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                        (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13 B (d), points 3 to 5 —
                                                                                Exempt transactions)
G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly,                                               ( 97/C 252/02 )
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June 1997, in which                                 (Language of the case: Danish)
it has ruled :
1 . Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty must be                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      interpreted as not precluding a Member State from                            published in the European Court Reports)
      subjecting wine produced in another Member State to
      an appropriate control in order to test its conformity            In Case C-2/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
      with Community rules, even where that wine is                     of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Denmark) for a
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/2            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                character and specific to, and essential for, those
court between Sparekassernes Datacenter ( SDC ) and                      services .
Skatteministeriet — on the interpretation of points 3 , 4
and 5 of Article 13 B ( d) of the Sixth Council Directive
( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of               6 . The mere fact that a service is invoiced by a third
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes                 party does not prevent the transaction to which it
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis                        relates from being exempt under points 3 and 5 of
of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the                Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Directive.
Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón
( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,            n OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
1 . Points 3 and 5 of Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Council                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977, on the
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States                                         ( Sixth Chamber)
     relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                                      of 5 June 1997
     added tax: uniform basis of assessment, are to be
     interpreted as meaning that the exemption is not               in Case C-398/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     subject to the condition that the transactions be              the Symvoulio Epikrateias ): Syndesmos ton en Elladi
     effected by a certain type of institution, by a certain        Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafeion v. Ypourgos
     type of legal person or wholly or partly by certain                                         Ergasias ( ! )
     electronic means or manually.
                                                                                (Freedom to provide services)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/03 )
2 . The exemption provided for points 3 and 5 of
     Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Directive is not subject to
     the condition that the service be provided by an                                (Language of the case: Greek)
     institution which has a legal relationship with the end
     customer. The fact that a transaction covered by those
  , provisions is effected by a third party but appears to             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     the end customer to be a service provided by the bank                     published in the European Court Reports)
     does not preclude exemption for the transaction.
                                                                    In Case C-398/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 3 . Point 3 of Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Directive is to       of the EC Treaty from the Symvoulio Epikrateias ( Council
     be interpreted as meaning that transactions concerning         of State ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
     transfers and payments and transactions in shares,             pending before that court between Syndesmos ton en
     interests in companies or associations, debentures and         Elladi Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafeion and Yporgos
     other securities include transactions carried out by a         Ergasias, supported by 1 . Somateio Diplomatouchon
     data-handling centre if those transactions are distinct        Xenagon, 2 . Panellinia Omospondia Xenagon — on the
     in character and are specific to, and essential for, the       interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty —
     exempt transactions.                                           the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                    President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                     ( Rapporteur), FI. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges;
                                                                     C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
 4 . Services consisting in making financial information             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     available to banks and other users are not covered by           judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
     points 3 and 5 of Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth
     Directive .
                                                                     1 . The rules of a Member State which, by prescribing a
                                                                          mandatory legal form of employment relationship
                                                                          between the parties, prevent tourist and travel
 5 . The mere fact that transactions concerning the                       agencies, wherever they are established, from
     management of deposits, purchase contracts and loans                 concluding, in connection with the operation of tourist
     are carried out by a data-handling centre does not                   programmes organized by them in that Member State,
     prevent them from constituting services covered by                   a contract for the provision of services with a tourist
     points 13 and 15 of Annex F to the Sixth Directive. It               guide from another Member State who is licensed to
      is for the national court to determine whether, before              pursue his profession in the first State constitute a
      1 January 1991 , those transactions were separate in                barrier for the purposes of Article 59 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case C-582/08: Action brought on 29 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/23

         Action brought on 29 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-582/08)
   (2009/C 69/41)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, M. Afonso, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by denying recovery of input tax in respect of certain transactions carried out by taxable persons not established in the territory of the European Community, the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 169, 170 and 171 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and with Article 2(1) of the Thirteenth VAT Directive 86/560/EEC (2) of 17 November 1986 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that Article 2(1) of the Thirteenth VAT Directive cannot be interpreted as excluding the refund of VAT charged on goods or services used for the purposes of the insurance and financial transactions mentioned in Article 17(3)(c) of the Sixth VAT directive (3). The Commission therefore takes the view that the United Kingdom legislation, in so far as it denies the right to a refund of that VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the European Community, is in breach of Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 326, p. 40.

      (3)  OJ L 145, p. 1. Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.


title: Case T-332/08: Action brought on 15 August 2008 — Melli Bank v Council

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/23

         Action brought on 15 August 2008 — Melli Bank v Council
   (Case T-332/08)
   (2008/C 247/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gordon QC, M. Hoskins, Barrister, and T. Din, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Paragraph 4, section 8, of the annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC concerning restrictive measures against Iran is declared void in so far as it relates to Melli Bank plc.

               —

               If the Court finds that Article 7(2)(d) of the regulation is mandatory in effect, Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation 423/2007/EC concerning restrictive measures against Iran is declared to be inapplicable.

               —

               The Council should pay the applicant's costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 (1) implementing Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision. The applicant contested the same decision in Case T-246/08, Melli Bank v Council
       (2).
   In support of its application in the present case, the applicant submits that the Council has infringed its obligation to state reasons, as it did not give any individual and specific reasons for the listing of the applicant. The applicant alleges that it has been listed, not because it has itself been involved in providing support to Iran's nuclear activities, but solely because it is a subsidiary of a parent company which is believed to have been involved in such activities.
   The applicant further submits that, if Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (3) is to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Council to list every subsidiary owned or controlled by a parent company which has itself been included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen, this provision should be declared inapplicable as it contravenes the principle of proportionality.
   The applicant considers that a mandatory listing of the subsidiary is unnecessary and inappropriate to achieve the purposes of the regulation, as the listing of the parent company prevents a subsidiary based in the European Union from taking instructions from its parent company which would directly or indirectly circumvent the effect of the listing of the parent company.
   Finally, the applicant claims that Article 7(2)(d) of the said Council regulation should be interpreted so as to give the Council a discretionary power to list a subsidiary of a listed parent company and not so as to impose an obligation on the Council in this sense.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2008 C 197, p. 34.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).


title: Case C-171/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 2 March 2001 in the election proceedings brought by the electoral group "Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG"

text:
C 173/30               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.6.2001
1.   Does Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III provide             Question 1
     for a date within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council
     Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the
     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
     to the protection of employees in the event of the                Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
                                                                       of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
     insolvency of their employer?
                                                                       to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State
                                                                       which excludes Turkish workers from eligibility to the general
2.   Has the Federal Republic of Germany effectively limited           assembly of a chamber of workers?
     the liability of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in accordance
     with Article 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC?
3.   Is the Federal Republic of Germany liable to pay damages          Question 2
     to the plaintiff on account of defective implementation
     of Directive 80/987/EEC?
                                                                       If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Is Article 10(1) of
                                                                       Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September
4.   Does the Court hold to its view that the date to be taken         1980 on the development of the Association directly appli-
     as the basis for determining the reference period is that         cable Community law?
     of the request for the opening of proceedings?
5.   Is the calculation of the insolvency benefit period pro-
     vided for in Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III
     compatible with Article 141 EC?
6.   In the case of claimants who are on child raising leave, is
     the day before that leave was taken the relevant date for
     the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 80/987/EEC?
                                                                       Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.                                                                  Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-174/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/52)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungs-               ties on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 March 2001 in the              Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting
election proceedings brought by the electoral group                    as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne
                   GewerkschafterInnen/UG’
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should
                         (Case C-171/01)
                                                                       —     Declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of plans
                         (2001/C 173/51)                                     for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried
                                                                             equipment and the PCBs contained therein, in accordance
                                                                             with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
European Communities by an order of the Verfassungsgerichts-                 biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
hof (Constitutional Court, Vienna) of 2 March 2001, which                    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001, for a                   obligations under that directive;
preliminary ruling in the election proceedings brought by the
electoral group ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’ on the following questions:              —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case C-55/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2007 — Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH v Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and the Autonomous Province of Bolzano

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2007 — Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH v Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and the Autonomous Province of Bolzano
   (Case C-55/07)
   (2007/C 95/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Bolzano
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH

      Defendant: Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and the Autonomous Province of Bolzano
   Question referred
   Are national provisions (Articles 2 and 8 of Decree-Law No 61/2000) which impose an obligation on employers to send a copy of part-time employment contracts within 30 days of their conclusion to the competent provincial department of the Labour Inspectorate, which imposes a fine of EUR 15 per employee concerned and per day of delay for failure to do so, and which do not set an upper limit for the administrative fine, compatible with Community law provisions and Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 (1)?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.


title: Case C-189/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/34

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten
      (Case C-189/16)
      (2016/C 211/44)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck

         Defendant: Pensionsmyndigheten

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the provisions in Article 47(1)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) mean that the insurance periods completed in another Member State, in the calculation of the Swedish guaranteed pension, can be given a pensionable value which corresponds to the average value of the Swedish periods where the competent authority undertakes a pro-rata calculation under Article 46(2) of that regulation?

                  2.

                  If question 1 is answered in the negative, may the competent institution, in its calculation of the entitlement to a guaranteed pension take account of pension income which an insured person receives in another Member State without that running counter to the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).


title: Case T-36/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Distribuciones Mylar (dm) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark dm — Earlier national figurative mark dm — Administrative procedure — Decisions of the Opposition Divisions — Revocation — Correction of clerical errors — Legally non-existent measure — Admissibility of appeals before the Board of Appeal — Time-limit for filing an appeal — Legitimate expectations — Articles 59, 60a, 63 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 60, 62, 65 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Rule 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Distribuciones Mylar (dm)
   (Case T-36/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark dm - Earlier national figurative mark dm - Administrative procedure - Decisions of the Opposition Divisions - Revocation - Correction of clerical errors - Legally non-existent measure - Admissibility of appeals before the Board of Appeal - Time-limit for filing an appeal - Legitimate expectations - Articles 59, 60a, 63 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 60, 62, 65 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Rule 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2011/C 311/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by J. Novais Gonçalves and subsequently by G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Distribuciones Mylar, SA (Gelves, Spain)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2008 (Case R 228/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Distribuciones Mylar, SA and dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2008 (Case R 228/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Distribuciones Mylar, SA and dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG in so far as it did not declare the amended version of the Opposition Division’s decision of 16 May 2007 to be null and void;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case C-213/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2009 — Barsoum Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2009 — Barsoum Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
   (Case C-213/09)
   2009/C 205/37
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Barsoum Chabo

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

      Question referred
       (1)

   Is the additional amount arising under the third country and preferential customs rate of EUR 222 per 100 kg of net weight of goods charged on imports of preserved mushrooms of the Agaricus genus (CN heading 2003 10 30) void for infringement of the principle of proportionality?

      (1)  Concerning Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 286, p. l).


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 January 2013 in Case E-16/11 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes — Obligation of result — Emanation of the State — Discrimination)

text:
               9.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/11

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 January 2013
   in Case E-16/11
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes — Obligation of result — Emanation of the State — Discrimination)
   2013/C 132/06
   In Case E-16/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to ensure payment of the minimum amount of compensation to Icesave depositors in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom provided for in Article 7(1) of the Act referred to at point 19a of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes) within the time limits laid down in Article 10 of the Act, Iceland has failed to comply with the obligations resulting from that Act, in particular its Articles 3, 4, 7 and 10, and/or Article 4 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Páll Hreinsson and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               dismisses the application;

               2.

               orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by Iceland;

               3.

               orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-205/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S and Others (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 3(1)(e) — Refusal or invalidation of registration — Three-dimensional trade mark — Adjustable ‘Tripp Trapp’ children’s chair — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods — Sign consisting of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S and Others
   (Case C-205/13) (1)

   ((Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 3(1)(e) - Refusal or invalidation of registration - Three-dimensional trade mark - Adjustable ‘Tripp Trapp’ children’s chair - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods - Sign consisting of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods))
   2014/C 421/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Hauck GmbH & Co. KG

      Respondents: Stokke A/S, Stokke Nederland BV, Peter Opsvik, Peter Opsvik A/S

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first indent of Article 3(1)(e) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal of registration set out in that provision may apply to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of a product with one or more essential characteristics which are inherent to the generic function or functions of that product and which consumers may be looking for in the products of competitors.

               2.

               The third indent of Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal of registration set out in that provision may apply to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of a product with several characteristics each of which may give that product substantial value. The target public’s perception of the shape of that product is only one of the assessment criteria which may be used to determine whether that ground for refusal is applicable.

               3.

               Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the grounds for refusal of registration set out in the first and third indents of that provision may not be applied in combination.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case C-161/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerp (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2008 — Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely v Belgische Staat

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerp (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2008 — Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-161/08)
   (2008/C 183/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely

      Respondent: Belgische Staat
   Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 (1) of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the Convention of 14 November 1975 on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning that the period laid down in Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention applies only for the benefit of the guaranteeing organisation, but not for that of the carnet holder, and that exceeding the period of one year from the date of acceptance of the TIR carnet in respect of the carnet holder affects entitlement to recover the customs debt or the excise duties and special excise duties and the liability for payment, and that exceeding the period of one year prejudices the right of the competent customs authorities to proceed to recovery of that debt?

               (2)

               Must Article 2(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Convention of 14 November 1975 on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning that the period laid down therein applies only for the furnishing of proof as to the regularity of the transport operation, but not for the furnishing of proof as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed?

               (3)

               Must Article 2(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Convention of 14 November 1975 on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as the period laid down therein also applies for the furnishing of proof as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed, that period is not a strict period and that the carnet holder may still furnish that proof even after that period has expired?.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991 providing for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents (OJ 1991 L 148, p. 11).


title: Case C-230/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Dansk Transport og Logistik v Skatteministeriet (Community Customs Code — Articles 202, 215(1) and (3), 217(1) and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 — Notion of goods which are ‘seized and simultaneously or subsequently confiscated’ — Regulation implementing the Customs Code — Article 867a — Directive 92/12/EEC — Articles 5(1) and (2), 6, 7(1), 8 and 9 — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 7, 10(3) and 16(1) — Unlawful introduction of goods — Transport of goods with a TIR carnet — Seizure and destruction — Determination of the Member State in which the customs debt is incurred and VAT and excise duty become chargeable — Extinction of the customs and tax debt)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/4

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Dansk Transport og Logistik v Skatteministeriet
      (Case C-230/08) (1)

      (Community Customs Code - Articles 202, 215(1) and (3), 217(1) and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 - Notion of goods which are ‘seized and simultaneously or subsequently confiscated’ - Regulation implementing the Customs Code - Article 867a - Directive 92/12/EEC - Articles 5(1) and (2), 6, 7(1), 8 and 9 - Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 7, 10(3) and 16(1) - Unlawful introduction of goods - Transport of goods with a TIR carnet - Seizure and destruction - Determination of the Member State in which the customs debt is incurred and VAT and excise duty become chargeable - Extinction of the customs and tax debt)
      (2010/C 161/06)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Østre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Dansk Transport og Logistik

         Defendant: Skatteministeriet

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 215 and 233 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), Article 454 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), Articles 5 and 6 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), and Articles 7 and 10 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) — Extinction of customs and tax debts upon seizure and destruction by the authorities of a Member State when the goods are unlawfully brought into the customs territory of the Community

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  A situation in which goods which are detained by the local customs and tax authorities when introduced into the customs territory of the Community in the area in which the first customs office is situated at the external border of the Community, and are simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by those authorities, without having left their possession, is covered by the concept of goods which are ‘seized and simultaneously or subsequently confiscated’ in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 955/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 1999, with the result that the customs debt is extinguished pursuant to that provision.

                  2.

                  The third subparagraph of Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 96/99/EC of 30 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that goods seized by the local customs and tax authorities on their introduction into the territory of the Community and simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by those authorities, without having left their possession, must be regarded as not having been imported into the Community, with the result that the chargeable event for excise duty on them does not occur. Where goods are seized after their unlawful introduction into that territory, namely once they have gone beyond the area in which the first customs office inside that territory is situated, and simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by those authorities, without having left their possession, the excise duty on them is not to be deemed ‘to have been placed under a suspension arrangement’ for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 6(1)(c) of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 84(1)(a) and 98 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/99, and Article 867a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1662/1999 of 28 July 1999, with the result that the chargeable event for excise duty on those goods occurs and, consequently, the excise duty on them becomes chargeable.

                  3.

                  Articles 2(2), 7 and 10(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that goods seized by the local customs and tax authorities on their introduction into the territory of the Community and simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by those authorities, without having left their possession, must be regarded as not having been imported into the Community, with the result that the chargeable event for value added tax on them does not occur and, consequently, that tax does not become chargeable. However, the second subparagraph of Article 10(3) in conjunction with Article 16(1)(B)(c) of that directive and Article 867a of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1662/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, for goods which are seized by those authorities after their unlawful introduction into that territory, namely once they have gone beyond the area in which the first customs office inside that territory is situated, and are simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by those authorities, without having left their possession, the chargeable event for value added tax occurs and that tax is chargeable, even if those goods are subsequently placed under a customs warehousing procedure.

                  4.

                  Articles 202, 215(1) and (3), and 217 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/1999, and Articles 7(2) and 10(3) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 1999/85, must be interpreted as meaning that it is the authorities in the Member State situated at the external border of the Community at which the goods were unlawfully introduced into the customs territory of the Community which are competent to recover the customs debt and the value added tax, even if those goods were then transported to another Member State where they were discovered then seized. Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 96/99, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities in that latter Member State are competent to recover the excise duty, provided that those goods are held for commercial purposes. It is for the national court to determine whether that condition is satisfied in the dispute before it.

         (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


               17.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 40/16

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 28 May 2004 in the case of Tsomakas Athanasios m.fl. v Staten v/Rikstrygdeverket
   (Case E-3/04)
   (2005/C 40/09)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 28 May 2004 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Bergen, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 June 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Tsomakas Athanasios m.fl. v Staten v/Rikstrygdeverket, on the following question:
   Is it compatible with the choice of law rules contained in Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, that the flag State proceeds from the premise that the State of residence must have issued a form E 101 or a statement containing information equivalent to that found in form E 101, for the legislation of the State of residence to apply in accordance with Article 14b(4), and that in the absence of such documentation, the legislation of the flag State shall apply in accordance with Article 13(2)(c)?


title: Case C-117/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by judgment of that court of 4 March 2005 in Manfred Seidl v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/1

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by judgment of that court of 4 March 2005 in Manfred Seidl v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen
   (Case C-117/05)
   (2005/C 155/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) of 4 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 10 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Manfred Seidl and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen on the following question:
   Are Articles 43 et seq. of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be interpreted as meaning that a requirement of the law of the Member State of establishment that an applicant for a driving school permit who is a national of a Member State and wishes to obtain a driving school permit in another Member State may not possess any other driving school permit constitutes an inadmissible restriction on the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?