title: Case C-492/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Dental profession — Specific nature and distinction from the medical profession — Common training)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/36

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
   (Case C-492/12) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Dental profession - Specific nature and distinction from the medical profession - Common training)
   2013/C 344/62
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État France

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

      Defendants: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
   Intervening party: Conseil national de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 36 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — Specific and distinctive nature of the profession of dental practitioner compared with the medical profession — Validity of national legislation introducing university training common to medical and dental students — Validity of legislation leading to the practice of the same specialty by doctors and dentists

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

                           (a)

                           Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding the creation, by a Member State, of a specialised training course, either in the field of medicine or that of dentistry, the title of which does not correspond to those listed, in respect of that Member State, in Annex V to that directive. Such a specialised course may be open both to persons who have completed only a basic medical training course and to those who have completed and validated only studies in the context of a basic dental training course.

                           (b)

                           It is for the national court to verify:

                                       —

                                       whether that specialised training course, in so far as it does not fulfil the requirements laid down by Articles 23 and 24 of the directive regarding basic medical and dental training, does not lead to the issuing of evidence of basic medical training or evidence of basic dental training, and

                                       —

                                       whether the qualification awarded following the completion of that specialised training course does not authorise the practice of the core medical or dental profession by persons who do not possess evidence of formal qualifications in basic medical training or evidence of formal qualifications in basic dental training.

               2.

               Directive 2005/36, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, must be interpreted as not precluding medical subjects from forming part of a specialised training course in dentistry.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-304/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Reber v OHIM — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Mozart) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Mozart — Subject-matter of the dispute — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Principle of legality — Article 7(1)(c), Article 51(1)(a), Article 73, first sentence, and Article 74(1), first phrase, of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/48

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Reber v OHIM — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Mozart)
   (Case T-304/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Mozart - Subject-matter of the dispute - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of legality - Article 7(1)(c), Article 51(1)(a), Article 73, first sentence, and Article 74(1), first phrase, of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 209/84)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R.Lange and G. Hild, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 97/2005-2) relating to entry of Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG and Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

               3.

               Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-255/02: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  21 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London) — Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2), Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) — Economic activity — Supplies of goods — Supplies of services — Abusive practice — Transactions designed solely to obtain a tax advantage)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/1

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London) — Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   (Case C-255/02) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2), Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) - Economic activity - Supplies of goods - Supplies of services - Abusive practice - Transactions designed solely to obtain a tax advantage)
   (2006/C 131/01)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunal, London
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — Interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Transactions carried out with the sole intention of obtaining a tax advantage — Transactions without an independent economic purpose
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Transactions of the kind at issue in the main proceedings constitute supplies of goods or services and an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2), Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, provided that they satisfy the objective criteria on which those concepts are based, even if they are carried out with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage, without any other economic objective.

               2.

               The Sixth Directive must be interpreted as precluding any right of a taxable person to deduct input VAT where the transactions from which that right derives constitute an abusive practice.
               For it to be found that an abusive practice exists, it is necessary, first, that the transactions concerned, notwithstanding formal application of the conditions laid down by the relevant provisions of the Sixth Directive and of national legislation transposing it, result in the accrual of a tax advantage the grant of which would be contrary to the purpose of those provisions. Second, it must also be apparent from a number of objective factors that the essential aim of the transactions concerned is to obtain a tax advantage.

               3.

               Where an abusive practice has been found to exist, the transactions involved must be redefined so as to re-establish the situation that would have prevailed in the absence of the transactions constituting that abusive practice.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.09.2002.


title: Case T-400/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/11

         Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)
   (Case T-400/16)
   (2016/C 371/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maximum Play, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MAXPLAY’ — Application for registration No 14 047 963

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 2273/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Failure to take into account properly previous European Union trade mark and national registrations as well as a national application.


title: Case T-177/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/45

         Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)
   (Case T-177/08)
   (2008/C 171/85)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office of 4 December 2007 (Ref. A 005/2007);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for Community plant variety rights: Ralf Schräder.

      Community plant variety right at issue:‘Sumost 01’ (Variety application No 2001/1758).

      Proprietor of the opposing Community plant variety right: Jørn Hansson.

      Opposing Community plant variety right:‘Lemon Symphony’.

      Decision of the Community Plant Variety Office, appealed against before the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the application for Community plant variety rights.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 59(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (1), in that the applicant was not duly summoned to the oral proceedings;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (2), in that the appealed decision was based on grounds and evidence on which the applicant had no opportunity to present his comments;

               —

               Infringement of Article 81(2) and Article 48 of Regulation No 2100/94 on account of the alleged partiality of an employee of the defendant, whose evidence was relied on in the decision;

               —

               Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 1239/95, in that no formal decision was issued concerning hearing the oral evidence of an employee of the defendant;

               —

               Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 2100/94 by reason of an insufficient and flawed assessment of the facts as regards distinctiveness;

               —

               Infringement of Article 48 of Regulation No 2100/94 on account of alleged partiality on the part of one of the members of the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).


               9.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/20

         Action brought on 17 November 2016 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-14/11 COSTS)
   (2017/C 73/10)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 November 2016 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell of Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, NO-0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicant asks that the Court make the following order:

               1.

               The total amount of the remaining costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, and Schenker Privpak AS, is fixed at EUR 183 951.

               2.

               That amount shall bear interest for late payment from the date on which the present order is served on the parties until the date of actual payment. The rate of interest to be applied shall be calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the deadline falls, increased by three and a half percentage points.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The applicants, collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’, run business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. DB Schenker was the applicant in Case E-14/11 against the EFTA Surveillance Authority before the EFTA Court.

               —

               Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states.

                  ‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’

               —

               In the judgment of Case E-14/11, the EFTA Court ordered the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.


title: Case T-198/06: Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme and Others v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/8

         Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme and Others v Commission
   (Case T-198/06)
   (2006/C 237/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme KG (Mayen, Germany), Nikolaus Theis Nachf. Böger GmbH (Bundenbach, Germany) and I.B. Rathscheck Söhne KG Moselschiefer-Bergwerke (Mayen, Germany) (represented by: T. Risse, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   Declare invalid Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 8 March 2006 on Germany's State aid No C 31/2004 (ex NN 53/2004) to Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants contest Article 1 of Commission Decision C (2006) 641 final of 8 March 2006, by which the Commission decided that the State aid awarded by Germany to Schiefergruben Magog GmbH & Co. KG, a competitor of the applicants, is compatible in part with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) EC.
   The applicants took part in the Commission's formal verification procedure.
   In support of their claim, the applicants allege infringement of Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33) in the version amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 63, p. 22).
   In the applicants' view, there is eligibility for aid under Articles 5a and 5b of Regulation No 70/2001 only if the new production process, the implementation of which was assisted by the aid, is a precompetitive development. They submit that that is not the case in the present situation, since the prototype for which aid was granted is not innovative.
   Furthermore, the applicants submit in support of their claim that there is here no eligibility for aid under Article 4 of Regulation No 70/2001. There is eligibility only where the production process receiving aid is significantly changed from the previous production process. That precondition is not met in this case since the working procedure in the production process has remained the same.


title: Case C-31/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshofes by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in the appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A

text:
26.4.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                            it in the fishing years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
hofes by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in the                              1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;
appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A
                                                                               —     by having failed to ensure compliance with the
                          (Case C-31/03)
                                                                                Community rules on conservation through adequate
                                                                                monitoring of fishing activities and appropriate
                         (2003/C 101/28)                                             inspections of the fishing fleet and of landings and
                                                                                recording of catches for the fishing years 1990,
                                                                                1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshofes                       —     by not having temporarily prohibited fishing from
(Federal Court) of 17 December 2002, received at the Court                           vessels flying the Spanish flag or registered in
Registry on 27 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                         Spanish territory when the quotas allocated to
appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A on                            Spain were deemed to be exhausted in the fishing
the interpretation of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                      years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,
No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a                              1996 and 1997 and by having finally prohibited it
supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products                          when the quotas had already been exceeded; and
(OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1; hereinafter ‘the Protection Certificate
Regulation’):
                                                                               —     by having failed to take legal or administrative action
                                                                                against the master or other person responsible for
Is the grant of a supplementary protection certificate in a
                                                                                overfishing in the fishing years 1990, 1991, 1992,
Member State of the Community on the basis of a medicinal                            1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;
product for human beings authorised in that Member State
precluded by an authorisation to place the same product on
the market as a veterinary medicinal product granted in                        the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
another Member State of the Community before the date
                                                                               under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 (1),
specified in Article 19(1) of the Protection Certificate Regu-
                                                                               Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (2), Article 1
lation, or is the sole determining factor the date on which the                and Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/
product was authorised in the Community as a medicinal
                                                                               87 ( 3) and Article 2, Article 21(1) and (2) and Article 31
product for human beings?
                                                                               of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 ( 4);
                                                                         —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Action brought on 4 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Spain                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-42/03)                                 —     Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/
                                                                               83, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92: those
                         (2003/C 101/29)                                       provisions impose a general obligation on Member
                                                                               States to determine, in accordance with the applicable
                                                                               Community law, detailed rules for the use of the fishing
                                                                               quotas allocated to them. The data on overfishing which
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      are cited in the reasoned opinions sent to Spain give an
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 Febru-                   overall picture of how often over a period of time and
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        how significantly the quotas were exceeded ( 5). They show
represented by T. van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and S. Pardo                        that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligation
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in               to put in place, in accordance with the applicable
Luxembourg.                                                                    Community legislation, appropriate and effective
                                                                               measures for utilisation of the fishing quotas allocated to
                                                                               it for the fishing years 1990 to 1997.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
—     declare that:                                                      —     Infringement of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/
                                                                               87 and Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93: proper
      —    by having failed to determine the appropriate detail-               management of fishing quotas also calls for appropriate
           ed rules for the use of the fishing quotas allocated to             supervision and monitoring to ensure that restrictions on


title: Case T-294/06: Action brought on 20 October 2006 — Nordmilch v OHIM (Vitality)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/23

         Action brought on 20 October 2006 — Nordmilch v OHIM (Vitality)
   (Case T-294/06)
   (2006/C 310/45)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Nordmilch eG (Zeven, Germany) (represented by R. Schneider, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2006 in Case R 746/2004-4 in so far as it dismisses the applicant's appeal

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Vitality’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 (Application No 2 835 684).

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The ground for denying the mark protection which is given in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) does not preclude registration as the mark for which registration is sought makes it immediately possible for the relevant public to recognise the origin of the goods protected by that mark and to distinguish them from the goods of other enterprises.

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


title: Case T-607/11: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission (Action for annulment — Request from the French competition authority seeking to obtain the transmission of certain documents contained in the Commission’s file relating to competition proceedings concerning the European market for consumer detergents — Use in the context of national proceedings concerning the French detergents sector — Disappearance of the legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/20

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission
   (Case T-607/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Request from the French competition authority seeking to obtain the transmission of certain documents contained in the Commission’s file relating to competition proceedings concerning the European market for consumer detergents - Use in the context of national proceedings concerning the French detergents sector - Disappearance of the legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 129/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for: (1) annulment of the decision allegedly contained in a Commission letter of 30 September 2011 (Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — and Case 09/0007 F) whereby the latter refused a request by the French competition authority to send it, for the purposes of Case 09/0007 F concerning the French detergents sector, certain documents produced in Case COMP/39.579; and (2) an order that the Commission authorise the applicants to rely on the documents in question in proceedings before the French competition authority and any other appropriate measure.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the first head of claim of the action, seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission allegedly contained in its letter of 30 September 2011 to the French competition authority.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Unilever PLC and Unilever NV.

               4.

               The applicants, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and Henkel France, are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including those incurred in the application for interim measures in Case T-607/11 R. The Kingdom of Denmark is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-95/16: Action brought on 1 March 2016 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal France (ROYAL & CAPORAL)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/52

         Action brought on 1 March 2016 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal France (ROYAL & CAPORAL)
   (Case T-95/16)
   (2016/C 156/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Savas Aydin (Pantin, France) (represented by: F. Watrin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaporal France (Marseilles, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ROYAL & CAPORAL’ — Application for registration No 12 587 663

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2015 in Case R 867/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to register the trade mark ROYAL & CAPORAL (application No 12 587 663);

               —

               order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs and expenses.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-234/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014 — Mammoet Salvage v Commission

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/37

         Action brought on 11 April 2014 — Mammoet Salvage v Commission
   (Case T-234/14)
   2014/C 184/59
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Mammoet Salvage BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and A. Schadd, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               primarily, rule that the European Union and/or the European Commission failed to act;

               —

               in the alternative, order the European Union and/or the European Commission to pay the amounts owed to the applicant;

               —

               in the further alternative, order the European Union and/or the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm suffered;

               —

               in all three cases, stay the proceedings, pursuant to Article 77 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, until three months after the applicant has received the arbitration decision;

               —

               order the European Union and/or the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the extrajudicial expenses.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In 2010, the applicant secured a tender for the removal of 74 shipwrecks from a harbour in Mauritania within the framework of the European Development Fund. The contract, which was concluded between Mauritania and the applicant, was, with regard to the financing, endorsed by the Ambassador and Head of the European Union delegation in Mauritania on behalf of the European Commission. While the defendant did not, through that endorsement, become a party to the contract, it assumed the obligation to pay for the works carried out.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to act on the part of the defendant.
               The contract between the applicant and Mauritania contains a provision stipulating that the European Union’s payment obligations end at the latest 18 months after the expiry of the period set for performance of the works. The applicant lodged a request on 4 December 2013 with Mauritania and the European Union delegation for an extension of that deadline. The defendant failed to respond to that request to act.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on the endorsement of the financing of the contract by the European Commission.
               The applicant is of the view that the works have been completed, and claims that the Court should order the defendant to pay the outstanding invoices, corresponding to the remaining amounts payable to the applicant in respect of the works which it carried out.

               3.

               Third plea in law, based on the non-contractual liability of the European Union.
               Should the Court take the view that the payment deadline for the European Union has passed, the applicant requests the Court to order the defendant to pay compensation in the amount of the outstanding invoices.
               Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Court should find that the defendant acted unlawfully towards the applicant with respect to the appointment of experts, whereby non-contractual damage was caused.


title: Case T-379/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Exemption from excise duty on diesel used to heat glasshouses — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and ordering the recovery of the aid paid — Duty to state reasons — Selective nature — Effect on trade between Member States — Effect on competition — Directive 92/81/EEC — Directive 2003/96/EC — Community framework for State aid for the protection of the environment)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-379/09) (1)

   (State aid - Exemption from excise duty on diesel used to heat glasshouses - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and ordering the recovery of the aid paid - Duty to state reasons - Selective nature - Effect on trade between Member States - Effect on competition - Directive 92/81/EEC - Directive 2003/96/EC - Community framework for State aid for the protection of the environment)
   2012/C 319/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: F. Arena, G. Palmieri and F. Varrone, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/944/EC of 13 July 2009 on State aid schemes C 6/04 (ex NN 70/01) and C 5/05 (ex NN 71/04) implemented by Italy in favour of glasshouse growers (exemption from excise duty on diesel used to heat glasshouses) (OJ 2009 L 327, p. 6).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-396/04: Action brought on 20 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/21

         Action brought on 20 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-396/04)
   (2004/C 273/39)
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers (1), or at least by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Order Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period prescribed for implementing the directive expired on 5 August 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 13 of 16.1.2002, p. 9.


title: Case F-43/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/61

         Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB
   (Case F-43/13)
   2013/C 207/106
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions contained in the pay slips for the month of February 2013, limiting the annual salary adjustment to 1.8 % for 2013 and the annulment of later salary slips. Secondly, application for an order that the institution pay compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision contained in the applicants’ pay slips for the month of February 2013, limiting the annual salary adjustment to 1.8 % for 2013 and, therefore, annul the similar decisions contained in later pay slips and, where necessary, annul two information memos that the defendant sent to the applicants on 5 February 2013 and 15 February 2013;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank (‘the EIB’) to pay to each applicant, in compensation for the material damage (i) the balance of salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2013, that is, an increase of 1.8 %, for the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013; (ii) the balance of salary corresponding to the consequences of the application of the annual adjustment of 1.8 % for 2013 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2014; (iii) default interest on the balances of salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, with the default interest rate to be applied calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable for the relevant period, increased by three points and (iv) damages on account of the loss of purchasing power; the overall material damage being assessed, provisionally, for each applicant at EUR 30 000;

               —

               Order the EIB to pay to each applicant EUR 1 000 in compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               Order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case C-367/04 P: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  21 February 2006  — Deutsche Post AG, DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly DHL International Srl v Commission of the European Communities, Italian Republic, Poste Italiane SpA (Appeal — Aid granted by the Italian authorities in favour of Poste Italiane)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/2

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2006 — Deutsche Post AG, DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly DHL International Srl v Commission of the European Communities, Italian Republic, Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-367/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Aid granted by the Italian authorities in favour of Poste Italiane)
   (2006/C 154/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Post AG, DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly DHL International Srl (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by I. Braguglia, Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, avocat), Poste Italiane SpA (represented by: A. Sandulli, A. Fratini and B. O'Connor, avocats)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 27 May 2004 in Case T-358/02 Deutsche Post and DHL International Srl v Commission dismissing as inadmissible the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/782/EC of 12 March 2002 on the State aid granted by Italy to Poste Italiane SpA (formerly Ente Poste Italiane) (OJ 2002 L 282, p.29)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Deutsche Post AG and DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly DHL International Srl, are ordered to pay the costs;

               3.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-475/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — UPC DTH Sàrl v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnökhelyettese (Telecommunications sector — Electronic communications networks and services — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Directive 2002/21/EC — Cross-border provision of a package of radio and television programmes — Conditional access — Competence of the national regulatory authorities — Registration — Requirement of establishment)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — UPC DTH Sàrl v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnökhelyettese
   (Case C-475/12) (1)

   ((Telecommunications sector - Electronic communications networks and services - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Directive 2002/21/EC - Cross-border provision of a package of radio and television programmes - Conditional access - Competence of the national regulatory authorities - Registration - Requirement of establishment))
   2014/C 194/04
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UPC DTH Sàrl

      Defendant: Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnökhelyettese

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU and Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37) — Company established in a Member State engaged in the marketing of a package of radio and television broadcast services by satellite and supplying services to customers established in other Member States of the Union — National legislation of the Member State of the recipients of the service which allows it to be supplied only to undertakings established on its territory — Competence of the national regulatory authorities of the Member State of the recipients of the supply

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a service consisting in the supply, for consideration, of conditional access to a package of programmes which contains radio and television broadcast services and is retransmitted by satellite falls within the definition of ‘electronic communications service’ within the meaning of that provision.
               The fact that that service includes a conditional access system within the meaning of Article 2(ea) and (f) of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, is irrelevant in that regard.
               An operator supplying a service such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as a provider of electronic communications services under Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140.

               2)

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a service consisting in the supply, for consideration, of conditional access to a package of programmes which contains radio and audio-visual broadcast services and is retransmitted by satellite constitutes a provision of services for the purposes of Article 56 TFEU.

               3)

               Surveillance proceedings relating to electronic communications services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, will be subject to the authorities of the Member State in which the recipients of those services are resident.

               4)

               Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           Member States are not precluded from requiring undertakings which supply electronic communications services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in their territory to register those services, provided that Member States act in compliance with the requirements set out in Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140; and

                           —

                           on the other hand, undertakings wishing to supply electronic communications services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in a Member State other than that in which they are established cannot be required to establish in that State a branch or a legal entity separate from that located in the Member State of transmission.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-170/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Commission v ID FOS Research (Arbitration clause — Contracts for financial assistance concerning projects in the field of industrial and materials technologies — Reimbursement of a part of the sums paid — Default interest)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/5

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Commission v ID FOS Research
   (Case T-170/08) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Contracts for financial assistance concerning projects in the field of industrial and materials technologies - Reimbursement of a part of the sums paid - Default interest))
   2014/C 380/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

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

      Defendant: ID Fiber Obtic Sensing Research (ID FOS Research) (represented initially by P. Walravens and J. De Wachter, subsequently by P. Walravens and C. Lebon, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking the reimbursement of a part of the sums paid by the Commission, together with default interest, under contract BRPR-CT-95-0099 concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (Brite-Euram III).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               ID Fiber Optic Sensing Research (ID FOS Research) is ordered to reimburse the European Commission the sum of EUR 21  599,26, together with default interest:

                           —

                           at the rate of 4,75 % per annum from 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2002;

                           —

                           at the rate of 6,75 % per annum from 1 January 2003 until the date of the present judgment;

                           —

                           at the annual rate applied under the law of England and Wales, currently section 17 of the Judgment Courts Act, 1838, as amended, up to a maximum of 6,75 % per annum, from the date of the present judgment until the debt is fully settled.

               2.

               ID FOS Research is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Second Division - Taxation Matters) of 28 February 1996 in the proceedings pending before that court between Codiesel - Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria, Lda, and Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro (Case C-105/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 158/5
preliminary ruling in the case of Directeur Général des                1 . Having regard to the facts held to be proved ( ) in part 3
Douanes et Droits Indirects v. Eridania Béghin-Say SA on                      of this judgment ( above all those set out in paragraphs A
the following questions :                                                     to D and L, commencing on the 7th folio and ending on
                                                                              the 12th folio ) and the applicable Community
( 1 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                              provisions, is the dual (2 ) tariff classification assigned to
       No 3677/86 (') of 24 November 1986 laying down                         the goods in question by the Tribunal Técnico de l a
       provisions for the implementation of Regulation                        Instância and later confirmed by the Tribunal Técnico
       No 1999/85 ( 2 ) valid, in that it provides that, in order             de 2 a Instância and the Tribunal Tributârio de 2a
       for goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must fall                  Instância correct ?
       within the same subheading of the Common Customs
       Tariff as the import goods, notwithstanding that the            2 . If not, what is the proper tariff classification ?
       basic regulation, Regulation No 1999/85 of 16 July
       1985 , does not lay down any such condition ?
                                                                       (') The imported goods are an electrical apparatus of the make
( 2 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of               Merlin Gerin , model : Alpes 100 12 KVA, comprising :
       24 November 1986 valid , in that it provides that, in                 ( a ) a cabinet containing:
       order for goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must                      1 , a rectifier-charger which feeds, from the electricity
       fall within the same subheading of the Common                                   network , an undulator and maintains a battery on
       Customs Tariff as the import goods, notwithstanding                             charge;
                                                                                2 , an    undulator    which converts direct current into
       that such a condition gives rise to disproportionate                            regulated alternating current;
       effects for economic operators ?                                            3 , a static inverter switch which enables surges to be
                                                                                absorbed without giving rise to a disproportionate
( 3 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of                         feed ;
       24 November 1986 valid, having regard to the                          ( b ) a second cabinet containing a sealed set of lead-acid
       principles of the protection of legitimate expectations                     accumulators which can operate independently for 30
       and legal certainty, in that it provides that, in order for                 minutes .
       goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must fall within        ( 2 ) The rectifier/charger, the AC converter and the inverter were
       the same subheading of the Common Customs Tariff as                   classified under tariff heading 85.01 B.II.(f) and the cabinet
       the import goods, notwithstanding that that Article,                  containing the accumulators was classified under heading 85.04
                                                                             B.I.
       combined with the provisions of Regulation
       No 2658/87 on the combined nomenclature ( 3 ),
       suddenly made it impossible, with effect from
        1 January 1988 and only until 1 January 1992, for
       persons to avail themselves of the inward-processing
       relief arrangements in respect of compensation on an
       equivalent basis as between cane sugar and beet
       sugar ?
                                                                       Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
(') OJ No L 351 , 1986 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 1985 , p . 1 .                                                                   ( Case C-107/96 )
C ) OJ No L 256 , 1987, p . 1 .                                                                        ( 96/C 158/ 10 )
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Supremo              Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
Tribunal Administrative ( Second Division — Taxation                   Principal Legal Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre,
Matters ) of 28 February 1996 in the proceedings pending               of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
before that court between Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio                 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz,
Técnico       à   Industria,    Lda,   and   Conselho     Técnico      Wagner Centre .
                              Aduaneiro
                         ( Case C-105 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 158/09 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
 European Communities by an order of the Supremo                               within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations or
 Tribunal Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court)                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
 ( Second Division — Taxation Matters ) of 28 February                         Council Directive 91 /156/EEC ( 1 ) of 18 March 1991
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 1 April                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC ( 2 ) on waste , the
 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
 before that court between Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio                       under Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
 Técnico à Industria, Lda, and Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro                      European Community;
 ( Customs      Examination        Board ) on    the    followings
 questions :                                                            2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .


title: Case T-287/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Autobedrijf Nelissen St. Geertruid v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Autobedrijf Nelissen St. Geertruid v Commission
   (Case T-287/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/60)

      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 63, 4.3.2000.


               29.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/49

         Action brought on 18 December 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-6/06)
   (2007/C 72/24)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 18 December 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Lorna Young, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Act and Article 7 EEA, and

               2.

               Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The case concerns the non-implementation of the environmental noise directive.

               —

               In the pre-litigation phase, Liechtenstein has not disputed that, by the expiry of the time limit, it had not taken the measures necessary to ensure implementation of the directive.


title: Case T-843/14: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/44

         Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union
   (Case T-843/14) (1)

   (2016/C 136/62)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Case F-102/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 February 2007 — Geert Haelterman and Others v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/57

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 February 2007 — Geert Haelterman and Others v Commission
   (Case F-102/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/122)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 26, 28.9.2006, p. 35.


title: Case C-312/01: Action brought on 7 August 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
29.9.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                 that (according to the interpretation which has been given
Stato by order of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case               thereto in the present case) would mean that a ‘best before’
of Albacom S.p.A. against Ministero del Tesoro, del                    date of four days after preparation would apply to milk
        Bilancio e della Programmazione economica                      pasteurised at high temperature (a type of milk contemplated
                                                                       and governed solely by Directive 46/92/EEC and Decree
                        (Case C-292/01)                                54/97/EEC).
                        (2001/C 275/18)                                (1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 17.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (3) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 21.
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
(Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 23 July 2001, in the case of Albacom S.p.A. against
Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione
economica on the following question:
                                                                       Action brought on 7 August 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
May Directive 97/13/EC (1) permit Member States to require
undertakings holding a licence or authorisation to carry on                                      (Case C-312/01)
telecommunications activities to make financial payments,
whatever they may be called, other than and in addition to                                       (2001/C 275/20)
those allowed by the Directive?
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 15.                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 August
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Elsa Christina Tufvesson, Commission Legal
                                                                       Adviser, and Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
di Bologna by order of that court of 24 May 2001 in the                —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
     case of Granarolo SpA against Comune di Bologna                         Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                                                                             regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                        (Case C-294/01)                                      comply fully with Directive 98/78/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 (1) on
                        (2001/C 275/19)                                      the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings
                                                                             in an insurance group, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
                                                                       —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Bologna (District Civil Court, Bologna) of 24 May 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 23 July 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Granarolo SpA against
Comune di Bologna on the following question:                           Pleas in law and main arguments
May application of the combined provisions of Council                  The Member States are required by the binding character of
Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health             the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC (ex
rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk,        Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) to adopt the measures
heat-treated milk and milk-based products (1) (implemented in          needed to transpose directives into national law before the
Italy by Presidential Decree No 54 of 14 January 1997) and             expiry of the time-limit laid down for that purpose and to
Directives 89/395/EEC (2) and 89/396/EEC (3), which concern            communicate those measures immediately to the Commission.
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs              That time-limit expired on 5 June 2000 without the Hellenic
(implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 109 of                  Republic having notified to the Commission the provisions
27 January 1992) be limited by the content of a piece of               transposing the directive in question into national law.
national legislation (in particular Article 5(3), in relation to
Article 3, of Law No 169 of 3 May 1989). If it is so limited,          (1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1.


title: Case C-345/00 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2000 by the Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs de Distributeurs de Produits de l'Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB) and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam against the order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-268/99 between the Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distributeurs de Produits de l'Agriculture Biologique and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 335/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.11.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              law in finding that the AECC had not committed a
                                                                             manifest error of assessment or misused its powers by
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                   not considering the applicant’s application and in not
Case C-335/00 (2); the period for transposition laid down by                 declaring that the contested decision was manifestly
Article 2 of the Directive expired on 30 June 1999.                          vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons.
(1) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 43.                                       —     Error in law: the Court of First Instance committed an
(2) OJ C ...                                                                 error in law by considering that the applicant had not
                                                                             lodged within the time-limits a complaint against the
                                                                             decision not to renew his contract as a temporary
                                                                             member of staff beyond 30 June 1998. A definitive and
                                                                             unambiguous decision to that effect is not to be found in
                                                                             the letter from the Director of CEDEFOP of 25 May 1998
                                                                             but in the letter of 3 June 1998 which is based on a
Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by Michel Hend-                          reexamination of the applicant’s legal situation in the
rickx against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by                      light of a new fact, namely the report of the chairperson
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      of the selection committee.
European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel
Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of
                      Vocational Training
                       (Case C-344/00 P)
                        (2000/C 335/62)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel
Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 18 September                 Appeal brought on 19 September 2000 by the Fédération
2000 by Michel Hendrickx, represented by Jean-Nöel Louis and           Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France
Véronique Peere, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs de
the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire s.à.r.l., 13 Avenue       Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique
du Bois.                                                               (SETRAB) and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam against the
                                                                       order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the Court of First
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-268/99 between
                                                                       the Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des
—     annul the decision by CEDEFOP rejecting the applicant’s          Régions de France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des
      application for the post of Head of General Support              Transformateurs et Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agricul-
      Services (Administration);                                       ture Biologique and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam and the
                                                                                Council of the European Union
—     annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract
      as a member of the temporary staff contract beyond
      30 June 1998;
                                                                                (Case C-345/00 P)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments                                                                        (2000/C 335/63)
—     Error in law: the Court of First Instance committed an
      error in law by considering that the authority empowered
      to conclude contracts of employment (AECC) had not               An appeal against the order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the
      committed a manifest error of assessment or misused its          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      powers by not considering the applicant for the post of          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
      Head of General Support Services (Administration) on             the European Communities on 19 September 2000 by the
      the ground that he ‘... has not obtained the minimum             Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de
      requisite number of points’. The Court committed an              France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
      error of assessment by not verifying the lawfulness of the       Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB)
      work of the selection committee and, in particular, of the       and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam, represented by Dirk Leer-
      decision to set a minimum of 70 % of the points in               makers, of the Brussels and Luxembourg Bars, and Catriona
      the view of the binding nature of vacancy/competition            Hatton, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      notices. In those circumstances, it committed an error in        at 5 Place du Théâtre.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 335/37
The appellants claim that the Court should:                               Communities on 20 September 2000 by the United Kingdom,
                                                                          represented by Mrs Rachel Magrill, of the Treasury Solicitor’s
—     annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July           Department, acting as Agent, assisted by Mr Peter Roth QC, of
      2000;                                                               the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard Roosevelt.
—     declare that the appellants have locus standi to initiate
      proceedings for the partial annulment of Council Regu-
      lation No 1804/99 of 19 July 1999 (1);                              The Applicant claims that the Court should order that:
and, accordingly,
                                                                          1)     Commission Decision 2000/449/EC (1) should be
—     grant the appellants leave to rely on their previous written               annulled to the extent that it excludes expenditure of the
      submissions;                                                               UK paying agencies in the total amount of
                                                                                EUR 5 039 175,46 / £ 2 919 698,26 in respect of arable
—     grant the other parties leave to present argument on the                   crops for the financial years 1996 and 1997;
      substance of the case;
—     order the Council to bear all the costs of the proceedings          2)     the Commission should pay the costs of the United
      at first instance and of the present appeal.                               Kingdom.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments:
—     Infringement of Article 230 EC: the Court of First Instance
      erred in refusing to recognise that the derogation inserted
      into Article 5(3a) of Council Regulation No 2092/91 (2)
      by Regulation No 1804/99 was in the nature of a                     The United Kingdom submits that:
      decision. The derogation in issue is contrary to the spirit
      of the regulation and to the positions previously taken by
      the Community. The circumstances of its adoption                    a)     the Decision was unlawful as there was no basis for
      confirm that it serves to protect individual interests,                    concluding that expenditure was not effected in com-
      namely those of Danone, the only major company                             pliance with Community rules within the first paragraph
      concerned.                                                                 of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation 729/70 (2);
—     Infringement of Article 230 EC: the Court of First Instance
      erred in holding that the applicants are not individually           b)     alternatively, if the system of supervision was inadequate,
      concerned, when their competitive position is under-                       the determination of the amount excluded was in breach
      mined owing to the adoption of the derogation in issue.                    of the fourth paragraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                729/70 and/or was manifestly incorrect;
(1) OJ L 222, p. 1.
(2) Regulation on organic production of agricultural products and         c)     the application of a 2 per cent flat-rate deduction for
    indications referring thereto on agricultural products and food-             1995 and 1996 breaches the principle of proportionality;
    stuffs, OJ L 198, p. 1.
                                                                          d)     the Decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural
                                                                                requirements.
Action brought on 20 September 2000 by the United                         (1) Commission Decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community
Kingdom against the Commission of the European Com-                           financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
                                                                              the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
                               munities                                       Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 180, 19.07.2000, p. 49).
                                                                          (2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on
                            (Case C-346/00)                                   the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 94,
                                                                              28.04.70, p. 13 [SE SER1 70(1) p. 218]).
                           (2000/C 335/64)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case C-493/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Marci Identi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Article 4(3) TEU — Sixth Directive — State aid — Procedure discharging bankrupt natural persons from debts (esdebitazione) — Ineligibility of VAT debts)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/7

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Marci Identi
   (Case C-493/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Article 4(3) TEU - Sixth Directive - State aid - Procedure discharging bankrupt natural persons from debts (esdebitazione) - Ineligibility of VAT debts))
   (2017/C 151/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: Marci Identi

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law, in particular Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and the rules on State aid, must be interpreted to the effect that it does not preclude value added tax debts from being declared irrecoverable under national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing for a bankruptcy discharge procedure by means of which a court may, under certain conditions, declare irrecoverable the debts of a natural person which have not been settled by the close of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against that person.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case T-226/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/47

         Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska)
   (Case T-226/08)
   (2008/C 223/83)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH (Ebersburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Wadenbach, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Schwarzbräu GmbH (Zusmarshausen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 April 2008 (Case R 1124/2004-4);

               —

               cancel Community trade mark No 505 503 ‘Alaska’ entirely, on account of the existence of absolute grounds for refusal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs;

               —

               in the alternative to the second head of claim, declare Community trade mark No 505 503 ‘Alaska’ invalid in respect, at least, of the following goods: ‘Mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks in class 32’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Alaska’ for goods in class 32 (Community trade mark No 505 503).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Schwarzbräu GmbH.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned granted in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

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


title: Case C-648/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — European Union water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Monitoring of the ecological status and the chemical status of surface waters — River basin management plans)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/2

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-648/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - European Union water policy - Directive 2000/60/EC - Monitoring of the ecological status and the chemical status of surface waters - River basin management plans))
   (2016/C 335/02)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Majcher and M. Drwięcki, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transpose completely or correctly Articles 2(19), (20), (26) and (27), 8(1), 9(2), 10(3) and 11(5) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Directive 2008/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, points 1.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4 and 2.4.1 of Annex V to that directive and points 7.2 to 7.10 of Part A of Annex VII to that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions and Article 24 of that same directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case C-222/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland), lodged on 18 June 2009 — Kronospan Mielec sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland), lodged on 18 June 2009 — Kronospan Mielec sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie
   (Case C-222/09)
   2009/C 220/32
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Kronospan Mielec sp. z o. o.

      Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie

      Question referred

               (a)

               Is the third indent of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1, as amended; ‘the Sixth Directive’) — now corresponding to Article 56(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended; ‘Directive 2006/112’) — to be interpreted as meaning that the services of engineers referred to therein, when provided to a person subject to value added tax who is carrying out commissioned work encompassing those services for a recipient of services established in another Member State of the Community, are to be taxed at the place where the recipient of the services (the customer) has established its business or has a fixed establishment;

               (b)

               or should it be concluded that such services, being services relating to scientific activities pursuant to the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive (now corresponding to Article 52(a) of Directive 2006/112), must be taxed at the place where they are physically carried out — on the basis that those services take the form of work that encompasses the investigation and measurement of emissions under legislation on environmental protection, including the conduct of investigations in connection with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and trading in CO2 emissions, the preparation and checking of documentation relating to that work and the analysis of potential sources of pollution, and that is carried out with the objective of acquiring new knowledge and new technological know-how directed at the production of new substances, products and systems and the application of new technological procedures within the production process?


title: Case F-108/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2012 — Oprea v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Non-admission to the competition — Pre-litigation procedure — Procedural irregularity — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/21

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2012 — Oprea v Commission
   (Case F-108/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to the competition - Pre-litigation procedure - Procedural irregularity - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 184/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant:
      Valentin Oprea (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini and F. Filpo, lawyers)

      Defendant:
      European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/198/10 not to admit the applicant to that competition because of an alleged lack of professional experience

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Oprea is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 69.


title: Case C-173/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova lodged on  3 April 2006  — Agrover S.r.l. v Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova lodged on 3 April 2006 — Agrover S.r.l. v Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova
   (Case C-173/06)
   (2006/C 143/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrover S.r.l.

      Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 216 of the Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992) apply where a Community product (rice) previously exported under the inward processing procedure with an EUR1 certificate to a non-member country (with which an agreement on preferential tariff treatment is in force) gives rise to the application of customs duties at the time of the subsequent compensating reimportation of the same (or equivalent) goods from a so-called ‘non-agreement’ non-member country?

               2.

               If duties under Article 216 of the Community Customs Code are not levied at the time of the compensating importation, may the customs authorities seek to recover them a posteriori, or does the exemption referred to in Article 220 of the Community Customs Code apply?