title: Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Eberhard Eiselt against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-208/96)

text:
No C 94/16           lENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Eberhard Eiselt                largesse whereby study missions have been granted to
   against the Commission of the European Communities                colleagues at the Centre.
                         Case T-208/96)
                          ( 97/C 94/36 )                             The applicant makes three arguments on the merits:
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     — infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by
                                                                          refusing to facilitate his professional development,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    — blatant discrimination against him in contrast with the
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                      treatment accorded to other employees of the Centre,
1996 by Eberhard Eiselt of Ispra (Varese, Italy)                          and to one colleague in particular, and
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with          the
right of audience before the Court of Cassation of         the
Italian Republic, with an address for service               in       — assignment of tasks in the graphics area and under
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10          rue            utilization of the applicant's professional abilities in
Mathias Hardt.                                                           the photographic area in which he is a specialist.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision refusing the applicant leave to
     participate in a vocational training course, on grounds         Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Enrico Palermo
     of infringement of the third paragraph of Article 24 of           against the Commission of the European Communities
     the Staff Regulations and of the general principle of
     non-discrimination,                                                                     ( Case T-212/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/37)
— declare unlawful the applicant's assignment to tasks
     for which he is not suited and for which he was not                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     originally employed, on the ground that the interests
     of the institution are not thereby served,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages of               Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
     ECU 10 000 ,                                                    1996 by Enrico Palermo, residing at Rome, a former
                                                                     official of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                     in receipt of an old-age pension, represented by Giuseppe
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the
                                                                     Corte di Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Ernest Arendt, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant, who is a B-grade official at the Joint                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Research Centre at Ispra, states that he was originally
employed as a photographic specialist, having previously
worked exclusively in that area . When the applicant                 — declare unlawful, first of all, the provisions on which
brought an action before the Court of First Instance, by                 the contested act is based,
reason of circumstances arising in the department to
which he belonged, he was obliged to move to another
department, thereby losing part of his original functions.           — annul the applicant's pension statement for February
That, the applicant maintains, was because the                            1996 in respect of both the recovery of the alleged
Commission preferred to resolve the dispute by means of a                undue payments and of the weighting as applied,
compromise and a promotion. It is in that context that the
refusal to facilitate the applicant's further vocational
training through participation in a specialized                      — declare the Commission to be under an obligation to
photographic course at an institute in Zurich, which is the              take the appropriate measures with regard both to the
subject of this action, arose .                                          payments and the recovery subsequently made,
The applicant argues that the refusal is particularly                — order the Commission to pay interest at 8 % on the
unjustified because it stands in stark contrast with the                 sums due and to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-640/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014  — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Recovery of taxes unduly paid under EU law — National legislation — Retroactive curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-640/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Recovery of taxes unduly paid under EU law - National legislation - Retroactive curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies - Principle of effectiveness - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations))
   (2015/C 065/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

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

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by adopting a provision, such as section 107 of the Finance Act 2007, which curtailed, retroactively and without notice or transitional arrangements, the right of taxpayers to recover taxes levied in breach of EU law the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


               7.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 33/10

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 14 September 2007 in the case of Celina Nguyen v The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Justice and the Police
   (Case E-8/07)
   (2008/C 33/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 September 2007 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 September 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Celina Nguyen v The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Justice and the Police, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives to except redress for non-economic loss (‘pain and suffering’) from the compulsory insurance system under national law?

               2.

               If the question is answered in the negative: is an exception from the insurance coverage as mentioned in question 1, a sufficiently serious breach of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives to be able to entail State liability?


title: Case C-107/07 P: Order of the Court of 29 November 2007 — Friedrich Weber v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Refusal of access to documents — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/10

         Order of the Court of 29 November 2007 — Friedrich Weber v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-107/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Refusal of access to documents - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 79/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Friedrich Weber (represented by: W. Declair, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Ladenburger, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2006 in Case T-290/05 Weber v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an action brought against the decision of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 27 May 2005 rejecting the applicant's request for access to a letter sent by the Directorate-General for Competition to the German Federal Government concerning State aid proceedings in relation to the financing of public-law broadcasting bodies in Germany
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Weber is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-297/05: Action brought on 29 July 2005 by IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/13

         Action brought on 29 July 2005 by IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission
   (Case T-297/05)
   (2005/C 257/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Prieß, lawyer, M. Niestedt, lawyer, and C. Pitschas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought:
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 13 May 2005 (ENTR/01/Audit/RVDZ/ss D(2005) 11382) to cancel the decision to grant financial assistance to the applicant in the sum of ECU 530 000 within the framework of the ECODATA-Project of 4 August 1992 (003977/XXIII/A3 — S92/DG/ENV8/LD/kz);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Commission granted the applicant financial assistance in the sum of ECU 530 000 on 4 August 1992 in order to set up a database for ecological tourism in Europe. That decision was cancelled by the defendant by the contested decision of 13 May 2005.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful. The applicant states in the grounds of its complaint that the conditions for cancelling a decision have not been met, since the factors relied on by the Commission in order to justify its decision are unfounded in law and moreover it is no longer possible to cancel the decision to grant financial assistance on account of the amount of time that has elapsed. The applicant further asserts that the contested decision is in breach of the principle of good administration and the principle of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 253 EC. Finally, the applicant complains that there has been an infringement of the prohibition on reissuing decisions which have been declared void.


title: Case T-446/15: Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi/OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/42

         Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi/OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO)
   (Case T-446/15)
   (2015/C 320/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (Indecopi) (San Borja, Peru) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synergy Group sp. z o.o. (Wrocław, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PISCO’ — Application for registration No 1016 7674

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Case R 1291/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision, by declaring that the requirements for the application of the relative ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are met in the present case, or, in the alternative, annul that decision; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 110/2008;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-183/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 November 2007 — Poland v Commission (Application for interim measures — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Commission decision rejecting that plan — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/16

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 November 2007 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-183/07 R) (1)

   (Application for interim measures - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Commission decision rejecting that plan - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)
   (2008/C 8/30)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: T. Nowakowski, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007, concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012, in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003, establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case F-119/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Di Tullio v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/66

         Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Di Tullio v Commission
   (Case F-119/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/132
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roberto Di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of OLAF's decision refusing to assign the applicant leave for national service under Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul OLAF's decision of 21 April 2010 refusing to assign the applicant leave for national service, despite the reminder order from the Guardia di Finanza of 24 February 2010;

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 10 September 2010 rejecting the applicant's complaint in part on grounds other than those relied upon in the contested decision of 27 April 2010;

               —

               as a result of those annulments, put the applicant in the position of being on leave for national service from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2012 inclusive;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-97/01: Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 108/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.4.2001
Must Article 3(a) and (b) of the Treaty of Rome, the first recital          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Directive 92/12 of                 Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber)
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products                   by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case
subject to excise duty (1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in            of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard
the preamble to Directive 92/81 of 19 October 1992 on the                                                 Abel
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils (2) be interpreted as precluding the French Republic
from refusing to reimburse the domestic duty on petroleum                                            (Case C-95/01)
products (TIPP) paid by a trader in petroleum products
following the failure by one of his customers to make payment?
                                                                                (2001/C 108/19)
(1) 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              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).                                                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
(2) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon-           Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) of
    isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992     19 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 27 Febru-
    L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12).                                              ary 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère
                                                                            Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel on the
                                                                            following question:
                                                                            Must Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                            prohibiting a Member State from preventing the free move-
                                                                            ment and marketing of a food supplement lawfully sold in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    another Member State?
cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case
of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut national
                de la propriété industrielle (INPI)
                            (Case C-81/01)
                           (2001/C 108/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission
European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour de                    of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
cassation (Court of Cassation), Commercial, Financial and                                           of Luxembourg
Economic Chamber, of 13 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SARL Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut
                                                                                (Case C-97/01)
national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) on the following
question:
                                                                                (2001/C 108/20)
Must Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 (1) be interpreted
as prohibiting the registration as a trade mark, for the products
covered by the regulation, of a geographical reference the use              An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
of which is not provided for by Article 11, even where the                  brought before the Court of Justice on 27 February 2001 by
registration of such a trade mark is not likely to mislead the              the Commission of the European Communities, represented
consumer as to the provenance of the wine and does not                      by S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents, with an
give rise to any confusion with a registered geographical                   address for service in Luxembourg.
designation, in so far as such registration might suggest that
the geographical reference in question, which relates to the
region where that wine is actually produced but which covers                The applicant claims that the Court should:
other designations of origin, is protected?
                                                                            —    declare that, by failing to ensure the transposition in
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying                   practice of Article 4d of Directive 90/388/EEC(1), as
    down general rules for the description and presentation of wines             amended by Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of
    and grape musts (OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13).                                 Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations;
                                                                            —    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 108/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the above-mentioned provision, to the advantage of the
                                                                        traditional operator.
The Commission complains that the Grand Duchy has failed
to ensure that rights of way are not discriminatory in                  (1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
nature; that failure may result either in the provisions of the             tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192
Luxembourg Law on telecommunications of 27 March 1997                       of 24.7.1990, p. 10).
being incorrectly applied or in the need for additional measures        (2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
                                                                            Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
to be incorporated into the Luxembourg legal order so as to
                                                                            competition in telecommunications markets (OJ L 74, 22.3.1996,
ensure that Article 4d of the directive is properly transposed.             p. 13).
The rules applicable to the approval procedure laid down in
Article 35(1) of the Law are imprecise, especially as regards
the connection between those rules and the traditional pro-
cedures for the grant of rights of way. The Luxembourg
Government has still not determined or published those rules,           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
and, in the absence of them, the various administrative                 d’État, Section du Contentieux, 2ème et 1ère sous-sections
authorities competent to grant rights of way over public land           réunies, by decision of that court of 29 December 2000
have not granted such rights to new operators entering the              in the case of Ministre de l’intérieur against Aitor Oteiza
market, even though the Law in question provides for this.                                            Olazabal
                                                                                (Case C-100/01)
As regards rights of way along the motorway network, the
Luxembourg authorities have pointed out certain difficulties                                      (2001/C 108/21)
resulting from the legislation relating to the creation of a large-
scale road communication system, whereas, according to the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
information available to the Commission, the work involved              European Communities by decision of 29 December of the
in laying supply and distribution cables along motorways has            French Conseil d’État, Section du Contentieux, 2ème et 1ère
been undertaken since that legislation entered into force.              sous-sections réunies (Council of State, sitting in judicial
                                                                        formation, 2nd and 1st sub-divisions combined), received at
As far as the Commission is aware, the complainant Coditel              the Court Registry on 28 February 2001, for a preliminary
has been provided with no cogent justification for the refusals         ruling in the case of Ministre de 1’intérieur against Aitor Oteiza
which it has met with from the various organisations and                Olazabal on the following question:
administrative authorities in response to its applications for
the grant of rights of way. In particular, those refusals make          Do Articles 6, 8a and 48 of the Treaty of Rome, now Articles
no reference whatever to the applicable essential requirements          12 EC, [18] EC and 48 EC, the principle of proportionality
provided for in Article 4d of Directive 90/388 as amended.              applicable in Community law and the provisions of secondary
                                                                        law adopted to implement the Treaty, in particular Directive
                                                                        62/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 (1), preclude a Member State
According to the information available to the Commission, no            from adopting, as against a national of another Member State
network operator seeking, as a new entrant, to enter the                to which the provisions of the Treaty apply, a measure for the
market has yet been granted any rights of way over public               maintenance of public order which, subject to judicial review,
land enabling that operator to provide a connection between             restricts that national’s residence to a part of the national
local networks and networks stretching from frontier to                 territory when interests of public order preclude him from
frontier and over the border, such as to place that operator in         residing in the remainder of the territory, or in such circum-
the position of being able to offer telecommunications services         stances is the only measure restricting residence that can
in competition with the traditional operator EPT.                       lawfully be taken as against that national a measure excluding
                                                                        him from the whole territory and adopted in accordance with
By failing to take all the measures necessary in order to ensure        national law?
the effective and non-discriminatory exercise of rights of
way, and by thereby deviating from Article 4d of Directive              (1) Directive 64/221/EEC of the Council of 25 February 1964 on the
90/388/EEC as amended by Directive 96/19/EC, the Grand                      coordination of special measures concerning the movement and
Duchy of Luxembourg has, at the very least, granted itself an               residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
additional period in which to implement the regulatory                      public policy, public security or public health (OJ, English Special
framework underlying the liberalisation; it has thus infringed              Edition 1964, p. 117).


title: Case C-437/03: Action brought on 17 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 304/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           13.12.2003
      —     if the goods cannot lawfully be placed on the market           The Commission claims that the Court should:
            because they are stolen goods and/or contraband?
                                                                           1.     declare that by granting Austrian dentists the possibility
2.    Is the answer to the first question different if the goods in               in Paragraphs 6 and 4(3) of the Dentistengesetz (Law on
      question are products subject to excise duty and in                         Dentists) of engaging in their occupation under the title
      particular manufactured tobaccos?                                           ‘Zahnarzt’ or ‘Zahnarzt (Dentist)’ and of making use of
                                                                                the exception laid down in Article 19b of Council
                                                                                Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 (1), although the
3.    If no excise duty is charged on products which are subject                  dentists do not meet the minimum requirements under
      to excise duty, is it compatible with the provisions of the                 Article 1 of Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July
      Sixth VAT Directive to charge VAT in such a case?                           1978 (2) for falling within the provisions of Directives
                                                                                78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC, the Republic of Austria
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 19b
4.    May Member States supplement the categories of trans-
                                                                                of Directive 78/686/EEC and Article 1 of Directive 78/
      action subject to VAT if they lodge a notification, as
                                                                                687/EEC;
      referred to in Article 27(2) or Article 27(5) of the Sixth
      VAT Directive, of their intention to charge VAT at
      national level in the event of theft of products subject to          2.     declare that by allowing, pursuant to Paragraphs 17
      excise duty from a tax warehouse, or is Article 2 of the                    and 23 of the Ärztegesetz (Law on Doctors), Austrian
      Sixth VAT Directive exhaustive?                                             ‘specialists in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery’ to
                                                                                continue, in breach of Article 19b of Directive 78/686/
                                                                                EEC, to engage in their occupation under the title
5.    If a notification as referred to in Article 27(5) of the Sixth              ‘Fachärzte für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde’ (special-
      VAT Directive relates only to the prepayment of VAT by                      ists in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery) and by
      means of fiscal stamps, may a Member State supplement                       those specialists not being placed on the same footing as
      the categories of transaction subject to VAT by, for                        dentists inasmuch as specialists in dental, oral and
      example, requiring the payment of VAT where products                        maxillo-facial surgery are entitled to engage in their
      subject to excise duty have been stolen from a tax                          activities under the same conditions as holders of dip-
      warehouse?                                                                  lomas, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifi-
                                                                                cations in accordance with Annex A (dentists), the
                                                                                Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                      under Articles 1 and 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC;
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform             3.     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           1. D e n t i s t s
Action brought on 17 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           Austrian legislation has created a ‘new category of dentists’
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                           which is not provided for in the directives. Although Austria
                               Austria
                                                                           recognises that the situation is contrary to Community law, it
                                                                           keeps it unchanged and continues to grant ‘dentists’ the right
                                                                           to engage in their occupation under the professional title
                          (Case C-437/03)                                  ‘Zahnarzt’ or ‘Zahnarzt (Dentist)’, and enables the Dentistenk-
                                                                           ammer (professional association of dentists) to issue certificates
                                                                           under Article 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC.
                         (2003/C 304/24)
                                                                           2. S p e c i a l i s t s i n d e n t a l , o r a l a n d m a x i l l o -
                                                                                facial surgery
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 October 2003 by the Commission of the European                          Austrian legislation distinguishes between, on the one hand,
Communities, represented by Dr Claudia Schmidt, Christina                  ‘doctors’, which includes ‘dentists’ and, on the other, ‘special-
Tufvesson and Andreas Manville, with an address for service                ists’, which includes ‘specialists in dental, oral and maxillo-
in Luxembourg.                                                             facial surgery’. Persons from other Member States who fall
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 304/17
within Directive 78/686/EEC are at a disadvantage in Austria                       the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
because they must use the professional title ‘dentist’ there,                      obligations under Article 18(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC,
while they are in direct competition with ‘specialists in dental,                  or has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of
oral and maxillo-facial surgery’. Furthermore, nationals of                        Directive 92/43/EEC to comply with the directive;
other Member States staying in Austria must be able to rely on
an unambiguous title. Otherwise uncertainty is created which                 —     declare that Article 13(3) of the Natuurbeschermingswet
could harm all patients from the Community. Since a ‘specialist                    (law on the protection of nature) is contrary to Article 6(4)
in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery’ is regarded under the                  of Directive 92/43/EEC;
contested Law as a ‘specialist’ and a ‘dentist’ is regarded as a
‘doctor’, it is clear that a specialist falling within Article 19b of
Directive 78/686/EEC does not practice under the same                        —     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
conditions as a ‘dentist’.
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             Although the Commission can in principle accept the measures
                                                                             which the Netherlands has proposed in order to remedy the
                                                                             failure found by the Commission in its formal notice of default,
                                                                             the Commission must find that at the present time the
                                                                             Netherlands is still in default since the proposed measures have
                                                                             not yet been adopted or brought into force.
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                             (1) OJ L 103 of 25 April 1979, p. 1.
                             Netherlands                                     (2) OJ L 206 of 22 July 1992, p. 7.
                           (Case C-441/03)
                           (2003/C 304/25)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                             Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 17 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                             2003 in the case of Götz Leffler against Berlin Chemie
15 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                                AG, a company incorporated under German law
Communities, represented by M. van Beek, as agent.
                                                                                (Case C-443)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,                                             (2003/C 304/26)
     regulations and administrative provisions in order to:
     —      fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
            lands under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Council                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                 European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
            wild birds (79/409/EEC) (1), or in any event by failing          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 17 Octo-
            to inform the Commission of those provisions, and                ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2003,
                                                                             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Götz Leffler against
                                                                             Berlin Chemie AG, a company incorporated under German
     —      fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                             law on the following questions:
            lands under Article 6(1), in conjunction with
            Article 2(1) and Article 1(a), (e) and (i), and
            Articles 6(2), (3) and (4), 7, 11, 14(1) and (2), and            1.    Must Article 8(1) of the Regulation (1) be construed as
            15 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the                        meaning that, in the event of refusal by an addressee to
            conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna                     accept a document on the ground of failure to comply
            and flora, (2) or in any event by failing to inform the                with the language requirement laid down in Article 8(1),
            Commission thereof,                                                    it is possible for the sender to rectify that failure?


title: Case C-413/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 13 September 2001 in the case of Franca Ninni-Orsache v Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst

text:
6.4.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 84/35
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                              2.2.1. the fact that shortly after the employment
gerichtshof by order of that court of 13 September 2001                                     relationship ended he became eligible for entry
in the case of Franca Ninni-Orsache v Bundesminister für                                    to university in the host country by virtue of
              Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst                                               having completed his schooling in his country
                                                                                of origin and/or
                         (Case C-413/01)
                                                                                2.2.2. immediately following termination of that
                          (2002/C 84/58)                                                    employment relationship until beginning his
                                                                                studies, he was looking for another job?
                                                                          Is it relevant to the answer to this question that the other job
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          sought by the person in question constitutes a sort of
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                          continuation at a similar (low) level of the job which he was
hof (Administrative Court of Appeal) of 13 September 2001
                                                                          doing for a fixed period but which has come to an end, or a
which was received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001,
                                                                          job which corresponds to the higher level of education
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Franca Ninni-Orsache v
                                                                          achieved in the meantime?
Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst on the
following questions:
1.1.     Does the fact that an EU citizen works for a short
         period (two and a half months) that is fixed from the
         outset in a Member State of which he is not a national
         confer on him the status of a worker under Article 48
         of the EC Treaty (now Article 39 EC)?
1.2.     When determining whether he is a worker in the
         above sense in such a case, are any of the following             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
         circumstances significant:                                       mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Ter-
                                                                          cera by order of 3 October 2001 in the case of Sociedad
                                                                          Cooperativa General Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Adminis-
         1.2.1.     the fact that he took up the job only some            tración General del Estado, Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén
                    years after his entry into the host State;                           and Azucarera Ebro Agrı́colas SA
         1.2.2.     the fact that shortly after the end of his short,                              (Case C-416/01)
                    fixed-term employment relationship he
                    became eligible for entry to university in the
                    host country by virtue of having completed                                      (2002/C 84/59)
                    his schooling in his country of origin;
         1.2.3.     the fact that he attempted to find a new job
                    in the period between the end of the short,
                    fixed-term employment relationship and the            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                    time when he took up his studies?                     European Communities by order of 3 October 2001 by the
                                                                          Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), Sala de lo Contencioso-
                                                                          Administrativo, Sección Tercera, (Chamber for Contentious
                                                                          Administrative Proceedings, Division Three), which was
2.     If he is a (migrant) worker under Question 1:                      received at the Court Registry on 22 October 2001, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Sociedad Cooperativa General
                                                                          Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Administración General del Estado,
2.1.    Does the termination, by expiry of time, of an employ-            Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén and Azucarera Ebro Agrı́colas SA
        ment relationship which is limited from the outset to             on the following questions:
        a fixed term constitute a voluntary termination?
2.2.    If so, in such a case, when assessing whether or not              If, in the exercise of its power of administrative review of a
        the termination of the employment relationship was                merger of undertakings, the authorities of a Member State
        voluntary or involuntary, are any of the following                deem it necessary to redistribute sugar production quotas
        circumstances significant, either in themselves or in             among undertakings situated in its territory in order to
        conjunction with the other factors referred to herein:            safeguard competition:


title: Case T-420/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — Portigon v SRB

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/56

         Action brought on 10 July 2017 — Portigon v SRB
   (Case T-420/17)
   (2017/C 277/81)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener and V. Jungkind, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 11 April 2017 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2017 (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05) in so far as the decision concerns the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the first to third subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (2) in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (3)

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution to the Fund, since a mandatory contribution for institutions under resolution is not provided for under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Directive 2014/59/EU. Article 114 TFEU prohibits levying contributions on institutions, such as the applicant, which are resolving their remaining business operations. The requirements for the adoption of measures under Article 114(1) TFEU are, in relation to the applicant, not satisfied. Furthermore, the levying of contributions is contrary to Article 114(2) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution to the Fund; since the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system. Such an obligation would infringe Article 103(7)(a), (d) and (g) of Directive 2014/59/EU.

                           —

                           The applicant has not engaged in any new business since the beginning of 2012 and is under resolution as a result of an aid decision by the European Commission. It holds the majority of its remaining liabilities on trust for another entity, which has taken over the opportunities and risks from that business.

                           —

                           Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (4) infringes Article 114 TFEU and Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU as an essential element relating to the calculation of the contribution (second sentence of Article 290(1) TFEU). Furthermore, the defendant should not have been allowed to transfer additional risk indicators (Article 290(1) TFEU).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), since, in view of the special situation of the applicant in comparison with other credit institutions liable to pay contributions, the decision is contrary to the general principle of equality. Furthermore, the decision interferes disproportionately with the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU, since the defendant, in calculating the amount of the contribution, wrongly failed to exclude the applicant’s risk-free on-balance sheet fiduciary business from the liabilities relevant to collection of the contribution

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, since the defendant wrongly calculated the applicant’s contribution on the basis of a gross approach with regard to derivative contracts

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in conjunction with Article 6(8)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, since the defendant, in calculating the amount of the contribution, wrongly regarded the applicant as an institution undergoing reorganisation and the risk indicator under Article 6(5)(c) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 should have taken the minimum value

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter due to the absence of an opportunity for the applicant to be heard

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter due to the fact that the decision fails to state adequate reasons

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

      (4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).


title: Case T-473/04: Action brought on 6 December 2004 by Cristina Asturias Cuerno against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/26

         Action brought on 6 December 2004 by Cristina Asturias Cuerno against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-473/04)
   (2005/C 45/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 December 2004 by Cristina Asturias Cuerno, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramon García-Gallardo and Alicia Sayagués Torres, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Commission of 26 August 2004 rejecting her complaint of 27 April 2004;

               2.

               recognise the applicant's entitlement to the expatriation allowance and other related allowances;

               3.

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in these proceedings contests the decision of the administration that she is not entitled to receive the expatriation allowance.
   In support of her application she relies on the following pleas in law:

               —

               Error of law in the assessment of the facts in that the contested decision does not take account of the fact that the applicant's work as an assistant to a Member of the European Parliament must be considered to be work done for an international organisation which, under the Staff Regulations, does not count towards the reference period.

               —

               Manifest error of assessment of the facts and, specifically, of the personal situation of the applicant, in that her reference period in Brussels was calculated wrongly, given that it amounted to only four years and 11 months.

               —

               Breach of the principle of non-discrimination. In that connection, it is claimed that the failure to recognise work done as a parliamentary assistant as work done for an international organisation is contrary to the practice of the other Community institutions. The principle of equal treatment has also been infringed by the Commission in that the work done by the applicant for the European Mortgage Federation was not recognised as work done for an international organisation, although the Commission itself had recognised it as such in the past.


title: Case C-47/04: Action brought on 6 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 71/16                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
Action brought on 30 January 2004 by the Commission                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admi-
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                     nistratif de Dijon (First Chamber) by order of that Court
                            Netherlands                                    of 30 December 2003 in the case of SA Laboratoires
                                                                           Fournier against Direction des Vérifications nationales et
                                                                                internationales
                          (Case C-38/04)
                                                                                (Case C-39/04)
                          (2004/C 71/26)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/27)
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    European Communities by order of the Tribunal Administratif
on 30 January 2004 by the Commission of the European                       de Dijon (First Chamber) of 30 December 2003, received at
Communities, represented by M. van Beek, acting as Agent.                  the Court Registry on 2 February 2004, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of SA Laboratoires Fournier against Direction
                                                                           des Vérifications nationales et internationales on the following
                                                                           questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —    Are the provisions mentioned in Article 244(c)B of the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                   Code général des impôts and in Article 49(g)H of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    Annex III to the said code, in so far as they restrict the
      Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of                    benefit of the tax credit for research to research activities
      the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approxi-                        performed in France, contrary to the provisions of
      mation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-                   Article 49 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
      visions of the Member States relating to the classification,              the European Economic Community?
      packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (1) and
      Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001                     —    If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is the
      adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45/EC of                    condition that the research activities be performed in
      the European Parliament and of the Council concerning                     France laid down by those tax provisions partaking of the
      the approximation of the laws, regulations and adminis-                   principle of coherence of corporation tax and thus
      trative provisions of the Member States relating to                       allowing restriction of the requirements of Article 49 of
      the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous                  the Treaty?
      preparations (2), or, in any event, by failing to notify the
      Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
      directives;
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 6 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-47/04)
The period prescribed for implementation of Directives 1999/
45/EC and 2001/60/EC expired on 30 July 2002.                                                       (2004/C 71/28)
(1) OJ 1999 L 200, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2001 L 226, p. 5.                                                   An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February
                                                                           2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Bordes and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 71/17
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare, principally, that, by having failed to adopt the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                         order to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC (1)of the
                                                                                European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December
      —     Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament                      2000 on the incineration of waste, the Portuguese
            and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
            the approximation of the laws, regulations and                       Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/76/EEC;
            administrative provisions of the Member States
            relating to the classification, packaging and labelling        —     declare, in the alternative, that by failing to have immedi-
            of dangerous preparations (1) and                                    ately informed the Commission of any such provisions,
                                                                                the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      —     Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August                          under Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/76/EEC;
            2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/
            45/EC of the European Parliament and of the                    —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
            Council concerning the approximation of the laws,
            regulations and administrative provisions of the
            Member States relating to the classification, packag-
            ing and labelling of dangerous preparations (2),               Pleas in law and main arguments
      or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of
      those provisions, the French republic has failed to fulfil           The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive expired
      its obligations under those directives;                              on 28 December 2002.
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 332 of 28.12.2000, p. 91.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period prescribed for implementation of those two
directives expired on 30 July 2002.
                                                                           Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Portuguese
(1) OJ 1999 L 200, p. 1.                                                                                Republic
(2) OJ 2002 L 226, p. 5.
                                                                                (Case C-50/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/30)
                                                                           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
Action brought on 6 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                           on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
                              Republic
                                                                           Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Gonçalo
                                                                           Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                          (Case C-48/04)                                   Luxembourg.
                          (2004/C 71/29)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that, by maintaining in force Article 508(1) of the
                                                                                Portuguese Civil Code, the Portuguese Republic has failed
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                            to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(2) of Directive 84/
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                          5/EEC (1) of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of
on 6 February 2004 by the Commission of the European                             the laws of the Member States relating to insurance
Communities, represented by A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis,                    against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                     vehicles;


title: Case C-388/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 24 August 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of South Western Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and others against Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 24 August 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of South Western Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and others against Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-388/04)
   (2004/C 284/18)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), dated 24 August 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 10 September 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of South Western Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and others and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the following questions:
   Are Article 12 and paragraph 6 of Annex V of Council Regulation (EC) 2287/2003 (1), insofar as they apply to vessels carrying gear in the class referred to in paragraph 4(b) of that Annex, unlawful in their application to ‘chain mat’ beam trawlers operating in the Eastern Channel because they are:

               (a)

               contrary to Articles 33 and 34 EC;

               (b)

               disproportionate;

               (c)

               contrary to the principle of equal treatment; and/or

               (d)

               contrary to the Claimant's right to earn a living free from unnecessary constraint?

      (1)  Regulation of 19 December 2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ L 344, 31.12.2003, p. 1).


title: Case C-599/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 4 — General budget of the European Union — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Article 53b(2) — Decision 2004/904/EC — European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 — Article 25(2) — Legal basis of the obligation to recover funds in the event of an irregularity)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-599/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 4 - General budget of the European Union - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 53b(2) - Decision 2004/904/EC - European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 - Article 25(2) - Legal basis of the obligation to recover funds in the event of an irregularity))
   (2015/C 065/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao)

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 53(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, failing a legal basis in national law, that provision provides a legal basis for a decision of the national authorities to alter, to the detriment of the beneficiary, the amount of the grant paid out of the European Refugee Fund, where management is shared between the Commission and the Member States, and to order the recovery from the beneficiary of part of that amount. It is for the national court to determine whether, taking into account the conduct of both the beneficiary of the funds and of the national administrative authorities, the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as understood in EU law, have been observed as regards the demand for repayment.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-133/12: Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Ben Ali v Council

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/25

         Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Ben Ali v Council
   (Case T-133/12)
   2012/C 165/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               adopt a measure of organisation of procedure, under Article 64 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, to ensure that the Commission discloses ‘all documents relating to the adoption’ of the contested regulation;

               —

               annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant an overall sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for all forms of damage;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 7 500 for legal expenses in support of the application, in accordance with Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, as recoverable costs;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By his application, the applicant seeks (i) the annulment of Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (1) and (ii) damages in respect of the loss which he considers to have suffered.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-301/11 Ben Ali v Council. (2)

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 27, p. 11.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C226, p. 29.


title: Case T-138/12: Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Geipel v OHIM — Reeh (BEST BODY NUTRITION)

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/10

         Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Geipel v OHIM — Reeh (BEST BODY NUTRITION)
   (Case T-138/12)
   2012/C 157/18
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Yves Geipel (Auerbach, Germany) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jörg Reeh (Buxtehude, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 and reject the opposition of 24 July 2009;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Yves Geipel

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘BEST BODY NUTRITION’ (international registration No W 982 101, naming the European Union) for goods in classes 25, 28, 29, 30 and 32.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Jörg Reeh.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark No 4 020 161‘BEST4BODY’ for goods in class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case T-349/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission (Application for interim relief — Directive 91/414/EEC — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — No urgency)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/23

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission
   (Case T-349/07 R)
   (Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)
   (2008/C 37/35)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium), Satec Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Elmshorn, Germany), Belchim Crop Protection NV (Londerzeel, Belgium), FMC Foret, SA (Sant Cugat de Valles, Spain), F&N Agro Slovensko spol. s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), F&N Agro Ceská republika spol. s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), F&N Agro Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) and FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/415/EC of 13 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of carbosulfan in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 156, p. 28) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-441/07: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/57

         Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-441/07) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 328/89
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case T-215/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Autoservice Fermans Exclusive v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Autoservice Fermans Exclusive v Commission
   (Case T-215/99) (1)

   (2006/C 261/57)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.


title: Case T-440/07: Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Huta Buczek v Commission

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/50

         Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Huta Buczek v Commission
   (Case T-440/07)
   (2008/C 22/95)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, legal adviser)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek;

               —

               in the alternative, declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as the Commission orders recovery to be effected from the company Huta Buczek sp. z o.o.;

               —

               declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as those provisions concern the effecting of recovery from Huta Buczek sp. z o.o.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its heads of claim, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               —

               Breach of Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC by reason of what the applicant considers to be an erroneous assumption that a situation consisting in the existence of public-law arrears on the part of the company Technologie Buczek S.A. constitutes aid that is contrary to the common market. The applicant submits that such an assertion on the part of the Commission results from an erroneous assumption that the public-law authorities had desisted from enforcement proceedings against the company Technologie Buczek S.A. The breach of Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC has also resulted, the applicant argues, from the fact that the Polish State was ordered to secure recovery of aid declared incompatible with the common market, even though Poland did not grant aid in the amount indicated in the decision to either the company Technologie Buczek S.A. or the group Technologie Buczek, and from the fact that the amount of aid to be returned was fixed at an arbitrary level without any foundation in law or economic justification. The applicant further submits that Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC were infringed by reason of the fact that the Polish State was ordered to secure reimbursement of aid from the company Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. notwithstanding the fact that there was no basis for assuming that that company could have been the actual beneficiary of aid granted to the company Technologie Buczek S.A and despite the fact that that aid was not granted to it, and by reason of the acknowledgement that the only actual beneficiaries of the alleged aid were the companies Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. and Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o., even though they benefited only from a portion of the assets of the company Technologie Buczek S.A.

               —

               Infringement of the principle of proper administrative procedure laid down in Article 253 EC and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the grounds of: lack of appropriate reasoning for the decision such as to allow the applicant to determine why the decision was adopted and, consequently, the issue of a decision that was essentially incomprehensible to the applicant and incomprehensible by reason of the erroneous and inadequate determination of the factual circumstances material to the case.

               —

               Breach of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC and infringement of the principle of proportionality resulting therefrom by reason of the imposition on the company Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. of the obligation to reimburse the aid, even though, in the view of the applicant, such action is neither appropriate nor necessary in order to attain the objectives set out in the Treaty, including in particular the fact that it is not based on any need to cancel aid that is incompatible with the common market.

               —

               Infringement of the principle of legal certainty by reason of the following: imposition, on a party which entered into a contract with an individual in arrears of payment towards public authorities, of the obligation to return aid which that party never received and from which it never benefited; determination, in a manner which the applicant considers to be arbitrary, of the extent to which persons within the group Technologie Buczek S.A. benefited from the aid allegedly distributed; infringement of the right to property by reason of the order to secure recovery of part of the State aid from a person who did not receive any aid whatsoever and was also not the actual beneficiary; misuse of powers by reason of the publication of a decision for a purpose other than to cancel aid incompatible with the common market.


title: Case C-500/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina Międzyzdroje v Minister Finansów (Request for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Capital goods — Immovable property — Adjustment of deductions — National legislation providing for an adjustment period of 10 years)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/10

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina Międzyzdroje v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-500/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Capital goods - Immovable property - Adjustment of deductions - National legislation providing for an adjustment period of 10 years))
   2014/C 261/16
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gmina Międzyzdroje

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 167, 187 and 189 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax together with the principle of neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, in a case where there is a change in the purpose of immovable property acquired as capital goods from an initial use in activities not conferring entitlement to deduct input tax to a subsequent use in activities which do confer such entitlement, provide for an adjustment period of 10 years starting from the time at which the goods are first used and, therefore, do not permit a one-off adjustment during a single tax year.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case C-670/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Access to justice in cross-border disputes — Directive 2003/8/EC — Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes — Scope — Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta
   (Case C-670/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Access to justice in cross-border disputes - Directive 2003/8/EC - Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes - Scope - Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable))
   (2017/C 309/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Jan Šalplachta

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 3, 8 and 12 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, read together, must be interpreted as meaning that legal aid granted by the Member State of the court hearing the particular case, in which a natural person domiciled or resident in another Member State has submitted a legal aid application in the context of a cross-border dispute, also covers the costs paid by that person for the translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of that application.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case C-72/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 18 February 2009 — Ėtablissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 18 February 2009 — Ėtablissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence
   (Case C-72/09)
   2009/C 102/18
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ėtablissements Rimbaud SA

      Defendants: Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence

      Question referred

   Does Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area preclude legislation such as that imposed by Article 990D et seq. of the Code général des impôts, in the version applicable at the relevant time, which exempts from the 3% tax on the market value of immovable property situated in France companies which have their registered office in France and which, in respect of a company which has its registered office in a country in the European Economic Area and which is not a member of the European Union, makes that exemption subject either to the existence of a convention on administrative assistance between France and that State for the purposes of combating tax avoidance and tax evasion or to the existence of a requirement in a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality to the effect that those legal persons cannot be more heavily taxed than companies established in France?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  24 November 2005  in Case C-136/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Regulations (EEC) Nos 804/68, 1706/89 and 3445/89 — Cheeses intended for processing in a third country)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 24 November 2005
   in Case C-136/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)

   (Export refunds - Regulations (EEC) Nos 804/68, 1706/89 and 3445/89 - Cheeses intended for processing in a third country)
   (2006/C 36/17)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-136/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 3 February 2004, received at the Court on 15 March 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General, B. Fülöp, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Cheese exported in 1990 which, by its nature, is intended for processing in a third country may be covered by an export refund under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/87 of 22 December 1987, provided that it is classified, taking account of its type and composition, under one of the product codes in the annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1706/89 of 15 June 1989 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, as defined by the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds annexed to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3445/89 of 15 November 1989 establishing the full version, applicable from 1 January 1990, of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 30. 04. 2004.


title: Case C-498/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 — Agricultural production methods meeting the requirements of environmental protection and upkeep of the countryside — Long-term set-aside of agricultural land for purposes connected with the environment — Agri-environmental aid paid to farmers and cofinanced by the European Union — Status as recipient of such aid)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/9

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)
      (Case C-498/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 - Agricultural production methods meeting the requirements of environmental protection and upkeep of the countryside - Long-term set-aside of agricultural land for purposes connected with the environment - Agri-environmental aid paid to farmers and cofinanced by the European Union - Status as recipient of such aid))
      (2015/C 107/11)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Simvoulio tis Epikratias

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Agrooikosystimata EPE

         Defendants: Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside must be interpreted as meaning that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set aside scheme for agricultural land provided for in Article 2(1)(f) thereof.

         (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.