title: Case C-228/10: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), British Sky Broadcasting Ltd v Euroview Sport Ltd

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), British Sky Broadcasting Ltd v Euroview Sport Ltd
   (Case C-228/10) (1)

   2012/C 73/43
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Action brought on 25 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-227/98)

text:
C 278/16              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.9.98
Action brought on 25 June 1998 by the Commission of                   Court Registry on 26 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling
         the European Communities against Ireland                     in the case of Kharalambos Dounias v. Minister for
                       (Case C-227/98)                                Finance on the following questions:
                         (98/C 278/25)
                                                                      1. Is the method set out in Law 1477/1984, in particular
                                                                          Articles 1(2), 2(3), 3(3) and 4(3) thereof, and
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                 Article 16 of Law 1642/1986 for calculating taxable
Justice of the European Communities on 25 June 1998 by                    value for the purposes of the taxes laid down by those
the Commission of the European Communities,                               Laws contrary to the provisions governing the
represented by Frank Benyon, its Legal Adviser acting as                  European Economic Community, in particular
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr                    Articles 30 and 95 of the Treaty of Rome?
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service,
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                      2. Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 (1) also
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               directly applicable where a tax provided for under the
                                                                          legislation of a Member State applies to goods
                                                                          imported from another Member State?
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    Council Directive 91/328/EEC of 21 June 1991
                                                                      3. If the answer to the preceding question is in the
    amending Directive 77/143/EEC on the approximation
                                                                          affirmative, is Article 11 of that Regulation contrary
    of laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                          to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and in
    roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their
                                                                          particular Article 30 thereof?
    trailers (1), as repealed by Directive 96/96/EC of
    20 December 1996 (2) but which maintained in force
    the obligations of the Member States concerning the
                                                                      4. If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is the
    deadline for transposition set out in Directive 91/328/
                                                                          reference in the abovementioned provisions of Laws
    EEC and/or by failing to inform the Commission
                                                                          1477/1984 and 1642/1986 to Council Regulation
    thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                          (EEC) No 1224/80 contrary to the provisions of the
    that Directive,
                                                                          Treaty of Rome and in particular Article 30 thereof?
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      5. If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Article 16 of the Code of Legislation relating to the
                                                                          Customs Tariff (Codifying Decree of 25/30 July 1920),
                                                                          as replaced by Article 1 of Law 428/1943, contrary to
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall               the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and in particular
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                    Article 30 thereof?
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1993             6. Is the administrative procedure for settling disputes
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to                provided for in Article 10 of the abovementioned
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of               Code of Legislation relating to the Customs Tariff and
the Commission.                                                           Article 136 of Presidential Decree 636/1977 contrary
                                                                          to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and in
(1) OJ L 178, 6.7.1991, p. 29.                                            particular Article 30 thereof, where a domestic tax is
(2) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1.                                             levied on goods imported from another Member State?
                                                                      7. Are the provisions of Article 50 of Presidential Decree
                                                                          341/1978, in conjunction with Article 152 of the Code
                                                                          of Fiscal Procedure and Article 4 of Law 1406/1983,
                                                                          contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
                                                                          in particular Article 30 thereof, where proceedings are
Epikratias (Greek Council of State), by a decision of that
                                                                          brought before an administrative court seeking to
court of 6 April 1998 in the case of Kharalambos Dounias
                                                                          establish the liability of the State with a view to
                    v. Minister for Finance
                                                                          obtaining reparation for damage resulting from the
                       (Case C-228/98)                                    infringement of provisions governing the European
                         (98/C 278/26)                                    Economic Community?
                                                                      (1) OJ L 134, 31.5.1980, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias (First Chamber), which was received at the


title: Case C-473/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 7 September 2015 — Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR v Eugen Adelsmayr

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 7 September 2015 — Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR v Eugen Adelsmayr
   (Case C-473/15)
   (2015/C 406/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bezirksgericht Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR

      Defendant: Eugen Adelsmayr

      Question referred

               1.

               Is the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 18 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has laid down a provision in its legal system, such as Article 16(2) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, which prohibits the extradition of German citizens to non-Member States, the prohibition also applies to citizens of other Member States residing in the Member State at issue?

               2.

               Are Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of the European Union must reject an application for extradition emanating from a non-Member State concerning an EU citizen residing in that Member State where the criminal proceedings from which the application for extradition arose and the decision rendered in absentia in the non-Member State did not respect the minimum standard of international law and the non-mandatory principles of the public order of the European Union (ordre public) or the right to a fair trial?

               3.

               Lastly, is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or the principle of ne bis in idem secured in the case-law of the Court of Justice to be interpreted as precluding further prosecution by a non-Member State in the case of a first conviction in the non-Member State followed by the discontinuing of proceedings in a Member State of the European Union for lack of real grounds justifying prosecution?

               4.

               In the event that one of the first three questions is answered in the affirmative, is, inter alia, Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Right to liberty’) to be interpreted as meaning that an EU citizen may not be held in custody for extradition where a non-Member State makes such an application for extradition?


title: Case T-106/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission of the European Communities (Public service contracts — Call for tenders concerning technical assistance to improve the information and communication technology system in the State Institute of Statistics of the Republic of Turkey — Application rejected — Period for bringing proceedings — Confirmatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/57

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-106/05) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Call for tenders concerning technical assistance to improve the information and communication technology system in the State Institute of Statistics of the Republic of Turkey - Application rejected - Period for bringing proceedings - Confirmatory act - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 326/124)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer,)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Tufvesson and K. Kańska, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decisions not to select the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders for the provision of technical assistance for the improvement of the system of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) of the Turkish National Institute for Statistics and of the decisions rejecting the applicant's request to renew the decision not to short-list it.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 20 March 2002 in Case T-356/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "CARCARD" — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
15.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 144/43
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      —    ‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking
                                                                                and payment processing programming; providing of food
                                                                                and drink; arranging and/or reserving hotel or guesthouse
                           20 March 2002                                              accommodation’ within Class 42;
                                                                           2.    As to the remainder, dismisses the action;
in Case T-356/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                      3.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and half of the
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                      defendant’s costs; the defendant is to pay the other half of its
                                                                                own costs.
(Community trade mark — ‘CARCARD’ — Absolute
grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation                (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                           (EC) No 40/94)
                          (2002/C 144/90)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                20 March 2002
In Case T-356/00, DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
                                                                           in Case T-358/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for
(Germany), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schen-
nen): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  (Community trade mark — ‘TRUCKCARD’ — Absolute
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000                      grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(Case R 477/1999-3) relating to registration of the word                                              (EC) No 40/94)
‘CARCARD’ as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-                                      (2002/C 144/91)
gozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:                                                     (Language of the case: German)
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and            In Case T-358/00, DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
      Designs) of 12 September 2000 (Case R 477/1999-3) as                 (Germany), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office for
      regards the following categories of goods and services:              Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schen-
                                                                           nen): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board
      —    ‘stationary and transportable data processing equipment;        of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
           programmes on data carriers for data and/or text and/or         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000
           image processing’ within Class 9;                               (Case R 569/1999-3) relating to registration of the word
                                                                           ‘TRUCKCARD’ as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
      —    ‘arranging and processing of the payment of charges,            of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-
           namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing         gozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
           including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for       a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:
           services and guarantees’ within Class 36;
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      —    ‘arranging of services and guarantees’ within Class 37;               for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) of 12 September 2000 (Case R 569/1999-3) as
                                                                                regards the following categories of goods and services:
      —    ‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-
           phones, speech recording services, information services;              —    stationary and transportable data processing equipment;
           telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech                     programmes on data carriers for data and/or text and/or
           recording services, information services’ within Class 38;                 image processing’ within Class 9;


title: Case C-399/99 P: Appeal brought on 15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri S.p.A against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli Murri SpA and Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 20/9
— The remaining pleas and main arguments are analogous to               Nor can the scheme and purpose of the provisions relied on
      those put forward in Case C-300/99 p (1).                         be used to deny the plaintiff a claim for damages. If there is no
                                                                        decision, the appellant does not know what action, if any, the
                                                                        decision-making body is taking. The decisive factor is that
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 12.                                      silence on the part of that body should not be interpreted as a
                                                                        refusal. Silence is a legal nullity, of no commercial-law or
                                                                        constitutional-law significance as such. The purpose of the
                                                                        action for failure to act is merely to provide the appellant with
                                                                        an additional remedy should it be appropriate to achieve an
                                                                        immediate resolution of the dispute. However, the injured
                                                                        party cannot thereby lose the possibility of interrupting the
                                                                        limitation period. It is not within his control whether or not
                                                                        the body being challenged acts speedily.
Appeal brought on 15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri
S.p.A against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
European Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli
Murri SpA and Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                        (Case C-399/99 P)
                          (2000/C 20/17)
                                                                        Action brought on 18 October 1999 by the Italian
An appeal against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the                Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ties
Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli Murri SpA
and Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                        (Case C-400/99)
15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri SpA, represented by
Karl-Gustav von Luschka, Chieming, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach                                          (2000/C 20/18)
8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 18 October 1999 by the Commission of the
I.    Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance in Case        European Communities, represented by Umberto Leanza,
      T-106/98 (1) of 4 August 1999 and order the respondent            assisted by Piero Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an
      to pay the appellant USD 7 923 791 plus 10 % interest as          address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5
      from 25 September 1991;                                           Rue Marie-Adélaïde.
II. Order the respondent to pay the costs.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s letter of 6 August 1999 (1) to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              extent necessary;
Infringement of Community law. The appellant complains that             — order the Commission to pay the costs.
the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the scope of the
second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 232 EC). The period laid down in the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
second paragraph of Article 175 is not eliminatory in regard
to claims for compensation for damage. Article 43 of the EC
Statute of the Court of Justice provides that the period laid           The Italian Republic contests the letter of 6 August 1999 on
down in the second paragraph of Article 175 is to apply only            the following grounds:
‘where appropriate’. The same is true of the wording of the
second paragraph of Article 175 itself, which merely permits,
but does not require, an action for failure to act to be brought        — breach of the principle of legal certainty and the rules on
(‘... the action may be brought ...’). The provision does not                transparency with regard to Regulation No 659/99/EC (2);
establish any connection between non-compliance with the
period for bringing an action for failure to act and loss or            — breach of the right to be heard and rights of the defence and
limitation of the right to bring a claim for damages.                        infringement of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 659/99/EC;


title: Case T-130/04: Action brought on 1 April 2004 by Gerhard Frauerwieser against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/50

         Action brought on 1 April 2004 by Gerhard Frauerwieser against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-130/04)
   (2004/C 118/109)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by Gerhard Frauerwieser, resident in Brussels, represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the Commission to complete the applicant's individual file by drawing up his staff reports from the time of his employment at the Commission, 1 November 1996, in particular by drawing up his staff reports for the periods 1997-1999 and 1999-2001;

               —

               annul the reporting year 2001-2002 in regard to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, annul his career development report (CDR) for the period 1 July 2001 to 21 December 2002;

               —

               make a ruling as to costs and fees and order the Commission to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant requests annulment of the reporting year 2001-2002 in his regard and challenges the AIPN's refusal to allow his application for his individual file to be completed by drawing up his missing staff reports. In the alternative, he requests the annulment of his career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   In support of his application he argues:

               —

               infringement of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the General Implementing Provisions;

               —

               infringement of the Evaluation Guide and the specific guide for staff assessment for 2001-2002:

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;

               —

               infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’;

               —

               infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff.


title: Action brought on 4 March 1997 by Erik Dan Frederiksen against the European Parliament (Case T-48/97)

text:
 10 . 5 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 142/23
Commission's position fails to take account of the binding           concerned the unlawful appointment by the Parliament on
authority of the judgment of 27 February 1992, Articles 18           3 July 1989, with effect from 1 June 1989, and its
and 19 of the Insurance Rules and the principle of good              subsequent re-appointment, of another official to the post
management. Having regard to everything on the file, its             of Language Adviser in the Danish Translation Division,
position also constitutes a misuse of powers. Since                  despite the fact that the applicant fulfilled all the necessary
27 February 1992, the Commission has systematically                  conditions and had been proposed for appointment to the
been acting in disregard of the applicant's rights and               post .
contrary to the Insurance Rules, as it had before that date .
The Commission could not legitimately instruct a new                 The applicant complains that the Parliament failed
expert for the purpose of the decision under Article 19 of           correctly to comply with the judgments delivered by the
the Insurance Regulations . In addition the pre-litigation           Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice, that it
procedure was not adhered to since the Commission made               disregarded the consequences of those judgments, and that
its decision on the complaint without convening the                  it refused to acknowledge the unlawfulness of its conduct,
Interdepartmental Group.                                             in that it persisted in such unlawful acts .
As regards the application for damages, the applicant                The Parliament's conduct has adversely affected the career
contends that the persistently unlawful behaviour of the             progress of the applicant, who is seeking, on a provisional
Commission over 13 years, since the application made on              basis, compensation for the material damage suffered in
24 January 1984, or at the very least over five years, since         the sum of Bfrs 6 000 000, corresponding to the difference
the judgment of 27 February 1992, has had a detrimental              in his salary and related allowances over the period from
effect on his physical and psychological health.                     1 June 1989 until the date of the applicant's retirement.
                                                                     Moreover, the applicant has suffered considerable non
                                                                     material damage, estimated in the sum of Bfrs 5 000 000,
                                                                     because the Parliament's conduct has seriously affected his
                                                                     health,    in  that   he     has   contracted  three   illnesses
Action brought on 4 March 1997 by Erik Dan Frederiksen               acknowledged by the appointing authority as being serious
                against the European Parliament                      illnesses within the meaning of Article 72 ( 1 ) of the Staff
                         ( Case T-48/97 )                            Regulations .
                           ( 97/C 142/47
                 (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                Action brought on 4 March 1997 by TAT European
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   Airlines against the Commission of the European
Communities on 4 March 1997 by Erik Dan Frederiksen,                                            Communities
residing at Howald ( Luxembourg ), represented by Georges                                    ( Case T-49/97)
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                       ( 97/C 142/48 )
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— award the applicant, on a provisional basis,                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
      compensation for the material damage suffered in the           Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 1997
      estimated sum of Bfrs 6 000 000,                               by TAT European Airlines, established at Tours ( France ),
                                                                     represented by Romano Subiotto, of the Law Society of
                                                                     England and Wales, and Nicholas Levy, of the Bar of
— award the applicant compensation for the non                      England and Wales, with an address for service in
      material damage suffered, estimated on an equitable            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15
      basis to amount to the sum of Bfrs 5 000 000,                  Cote d'Eich .
— order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  — annul the contested communication pursuant to
                                                                          Article 173 of the Treaty, primarily on account of
The applicant has previously brought a number of actions                  infringement of essential procedural requirements and,
against the European Parliament ( for example, Case                       in the alternative, by reason of manifest errors of
                                                                          assessment,
T-169/89, reported at [ 1991 ] ECR 11-1403 , and Case
T-106/92 , reported at [ 1995] ECR SC 11-99, an abstract of
which appears at [ 1995] ECR-SC I-A-29 ), all of which               — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case T-555/14: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Estonia v Commission (Fisheries — Investment for fishing vessels carried out by Estonia — Decision to suspend the interim payments — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/29

         Order of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Estonia v Commission
   (Case T-555/14) (1)

   ((Fisheries - Investment for fishing vessels carried out by Estonia - Decision to suspend the interim payments - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 381/32)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg and K. Kraavi Käerdi, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Randvere and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 3271 final of 14 May 2014 on the suspension of interim payments in favour of Estonia for the period 2007/2013 within the framework of the operational programme of support for Estonia from the European Fisheries Fund.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2003 in Case T-213/00: CMA CGM and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Agreement between members of a liner conference and independent shipping companies — Charges and surcharges — Legal basis — Ryegulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 — Relevant market — Proof of infringement — Limitation period — Fine)

text:
C 124/18                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             24.5.2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                3.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of
                                                                                the applicants’ costs;
                         of 19 March 2003                                  4.     Orders the applicants to bear half of their own costs.
in Case T-213/00: CMA CGM and Others v Commission                          (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
               of the European Communities ( 1)
(Competition — Agreement between members of a liner
conference and independent shipping companies — Charges
and surcharges — Legal basis — Ryegulation (EEC)
No 4056/86 — Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 — Relevant
market — Proof of infringement — Limitation period —                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                               Fine)
                                                                                of 12 March 2003
                          (2003/C 124/30)
                                                                           in Case T-174/01: Jean M. Goulbourn v Office for Harmon-
                                                                           isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                        (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Appli-
                                                                           cation for Community word mark Silk Cocoon — Earlier
                                                                           word mark COCOON — Proof of genuine use of earlier
In Case T-213/00: CMA CGM, established in Marseilles                       mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
(France), Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Seoul                                          — Right to be heard)
(South Korea), Evergreen Marine Corp. Ltd, established in
Taipei (Taiwan), Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Taipei,
Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie GmbH, established in Seoul,                                                (2003/C 124/31)
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan),
Malaysia International Shipping Corporation Berhad, estab-                                     (Language of the case: German)
lished in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd,
established in Tokyo, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, established in
Singapore (Singapore), Nippon Yusen Kaisha, established in
Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd, established in
                                                                           In Case T-174/01: Jean M. Goulbourn, residing at Dasmarinas
Wanchai (Hong Kong), P & O Nedlloyd Container Line Ltd,
established in London, Senator Lines GmbH, successor in                    Village, Makati, Metro Manila (Philippines), represented by
                                                                           S. Jackermeier, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the
title to DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in Bremen
                                                                           Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G.
(Germany), Yangming Marine Transport Corp., established in
Taipei, represented initially by J. Pheasant, C. Barlen, M. Levitt,        Schneider), the other party before the Court being Redcats SA,
                                                                           established in Roubaix (France), represented by A. Bertrand
D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister, and subsequently by
                                                                           and T. Reisch, lawyers: Action brought against the decision of
J. Pheasant, M. Levitt, D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister,
                                                                           the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
                                                                           the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 April
mission of the European Communities (Agents: initially P.
Oliver and E. Gippini Fournier, and, subsequently, M. Oliver):             2001 in Case R 641/2000-3 relating to an opposition
                                                                           procedure between Redcats SA and Jean M. Goulbourn, the
Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/
                                                                           Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
627/EC of 16 May 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.018 — Far East Trade Tariff             R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                           Judges, Registrar: D. Christensen, Administrator, has given a
Charges and Surcharges Agreement (FETTCSA) (OJ 2000
L 268, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                 judgment on 12 March 2003, in which it:
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a         1.     Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
judgment on 19 March 2003, in which it:                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) of 25 April 2001 (Case R 641/2000-3);
1.    Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2000/627/EC of               2.     Orders the Office to pay the costs.
      16 May 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81
      of the EC Treaty (IV/34.018 — Far East Trade Tariff Charges
      and Surcharges Agreement (FETTCSA);                                  (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat du Royaume de Belgique by judgment of that court of 4 December 1995 in the case of Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian State in the person of the Finance Minister (Case C-13/96)

text:
No C 64/ 10 .            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2 . 3 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat du                    large, but variable, proportion of the material which it
Royaume de Belgique by judgment of that court of                               broadcasts is of non-European origin if the national
4 December 1995 in the case of Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian                       court also finds that the body in question is based in the
          State in the person of the Finance Minister                          territory of the Member State in question and that the
                              Case C-13 /96 )                                  actual activities of programme management,
                                                                               composition and assembly are carried out there ?
                              ( 96/C 64/21
                                                                         2 . Assuming that broadcasts emanating from a television
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         broadcaster authorized by a Member State are not to be
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat                         regarded as broadcasts transmitted by a broadcaster
( Council of State ) of the Kingdom of Belgium of 4 December                   under the jurisdiction of a Member State within the
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                             meaning of Directive 89/552/EEC, is another Member
19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bic                  State entitled — and, if so, on what conditions , regard
Benelux SA against Belgian State in the person of the Finance                  being had in particular to Article 59 et seq. of the Treaty
Minister on the following question :                                           — to prohibit or restrict their retransmission in a
                                                                               particular area ?
'Do the obligation to affix a particular distinctive sign on
products subject to a tax payable by reason of the ecological            3 . Should Article 2 of that Directive be interpreted as
damage they are deemed to cause, prior to the release of such                  meaning that, if a television broadcaster comes under
products on to the market, and the obligation to affix                         the jurisdiction of a Member State, another Member
another distinctive sign on products of the same type if they                  State is not entitled to oppose the retransmission in its
are exempt from that tax by virtue of diplomatic privilege,                    territory of television broadcasts transmitted by that
constitute " technical specifications " within the meaning of                  broadcaster even in the event that the rules laid down in
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 83/ 189/EEC of 28 March                   Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive are not complied
1983 ( 1 ) laying down a procedure for the provision of                        with ?
information in the field of technical standards and
regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/ 182/EEC                 ( 1 ) OJ No L 298 , p . 23 .
of 22 March 1988 ( 2 ), or " technical regulations " within the
meaning of Article 1 ( 5 ) of that Directive ?'
(') OJ No L 109 , p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 81 , p . 75 .
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                         Hamburg by order of that court of 1 December 1995 in the
                                                                         case of Dr Kalliope Schoning-Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und
                                                                                Hansestadt Hamburg
                                                                                ( Case C-15/96 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                                                96 /C 64/23 )
Premiere Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
16 January 1996 in the criminal case of Procurateur du Roi,              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
civil party: the Belgian State, in the persons of the Deputy             European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht
Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications and                   ( Labour Court ) Hamburg — Third Chamber — of
Public Undertakings and the Minister for Scientific Policy v.            1 December 1995 , received at the Court Registry on
                                Paul Denuit                              19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr
                            ( Case C-14/96 )                             Kalliope Schoning-Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und
                                                                         Hansestadt Hamburg on the following questions :
                               ( 96/C 64/22 )
                                                                          1 . is there an infringement of Article 48 of the EC Treaty
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         and Article 7 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                            No 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for
Premiere Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,                      workers within the Community ( J ) where a collective
Brussels ) of 16 January 1996 , received at the Court Registry                 agreement for the public service provides for promotion
on 19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                  on grounds of seniority after eight years' service only in a
case of Procurateur du Roi, civil party: the Belgian State, in                 particular salary bracket provided for by the collective
the persons of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister                      wage agreement in force for all employees in the public
for Communications and Public Undertakings and the                             service of the Federal Republic of Germany ('the BAT')
Minister for Scientific Policy v. Paul Denuit on the following                 and therefore does not take account of comparable
questions :                                                                    activities carried out in the public service of another
                                                                               Member State of the EC ?
 1 . What conditions have to be met for a television
      broadcaster to be regarded as coming under the                     2 . If the reply to question 1 is in the affirmative :
      jurisdiction of a Member State within the meaning of
      Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (') of                    does Article 48 together with Regulation ( EEC )
       3 October 1989 ? To what extent is it relevant that a                   No 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2005 in Case C-160/03: Kingdom of Spain v Eurojust (Action for annulment under Article 230 EC — Action brought by a Member State challenging calls for applications, issued by Eurojust, for positions as members of the temporary staff — No jurisdiction of the Court — Inadmissible)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 15 March 2005
   in Case C-160/03: Kingdom of Spain v Eurojust (1)

   (Action for annulment under Article 230 EC - Action brought by a Member State challenging calls for applications, issued by Eurojust, for positions as members of the temporary staff - No jurisdiction of the Court - Inadmissible)
   (2005/C 132/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-160/03: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea), supported by Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnäv) v Eurojust (Agent: J. Rivas de Andrés and D. O'Keeffe) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 8 April 2004 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič and J. Malenovský, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that the application is inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 45, 19.2.2005

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/42

         (2005/C 57/72)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

      OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

      OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

      OJ C 314, 18.12.2004

      OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

      OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 February 1999 in Case T-124/98: Corrado Politi v European Training Foundation (Members of the temporary staff - Time-limit for submitting complaints - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 174/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.6.1999
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               address for service at the Chambers of Francesco Caruso, 2A
                                                                           Rue Van Moer, Brussels v Commission of the European
                        of 11 March 1999                                   Communities (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Stefania
                                                                           Dragone) — application for annulment of Commission
in Case T-66/98: Giuliana Gaspari v European Parlia-                       Decision 98/95/EC of 21 October 1997 relating to aid granted
                             ment (1)                                      by the Sardinia Region to the maritime industry in Sardinia
                                                                           (OJ 1998 L 20, p. 30) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                           Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J.D. Cooke,
(Officials — Thermal cure — Decision rejecting a request                   President of the Chamber, and of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
for prior authorisation for reimbursement of expenses —                    P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
      Statement of reasons — Medical opinion — Privacy)                    has given an order in which it:
                         (1999/C 174/07)                                   1. Declines jurisdiction in Case T-58/98 Sardegna Lines v Com-
                                                                               mission in favour of the Court of Justice, in order that the latter
                                                                               may rule on the claims for annulment;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2. Orders the costs to be reserved.
In Case T-66/98: Giuliana Gaspari, an official of the European
Parliament, residing at Sandweiler (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 184 (13.6.1998).
initially by Jean-Noël Louis, Ariane Tornel and Françoise
Parmentier, and subsequently by Lucette Defalque, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
European Parliament (Agents: Yannis Pantalis and Matthew
Moore) — application for annulment of the decision of
26 August 1997 of the office responsible for settling claims in                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, rejecting the request submitted by the applicant
on 9 June 1997 for prior authorisation for the reimbursement                                      of 9 February 1999
of expenses in respect of a thermal cure — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
                                                                           in Case T-124/98: Corrado Politi v European Training
President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                                Foundation (1)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
11 March 1999, in which it:
                                                                           (Members of the temporary staff — Time-limit for submit-
1. Dismisses the action;                                                   ting complaints — Time-limit for bringing proceedings —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 174/09)
( 1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-124/98: Corrado Politi, a former member of the
                                                                           temporary staff of the European Training Foundation, residing
                                                                           in Turin (Italy), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Françoise
                                                                           Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
                                                                           de Cessange, v European Training Foundation (Agent: Bertrand
                        of 16 March 1999                                   Wägenbaur) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
                                                                           of 16 September 1997 concerning the drawing-up of the
in Case T-58/98 Sardegna Lines v Commission of the                         applicant’s final assessment report and, second, of the decision
                   European Communities (1)                                of 30 September 1997 refusing to renew his contract — the
                                                                           Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                   (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                            A. Potocki, President, and C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 February 1999,
                                                                           the operative part of which is as follows:
                         (1999/C 174/08)
                                                                           1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
In Case T-58/98 Sardegna Lines, Servizi Marittimi della
Sardegna SpA, whose registered office is in Cagliari, represent-           (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
ed by Francesco Caruso and Ugo Iaccarino, Avvocati, and by
Beniamino Carnevale and Claudio Caruso, Avvocati, with an


title: Case T-30/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission (Competition — Cartels — European haberdashery market (needles) — Product market sharing — Geographic market sharing — Fine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Duty to state reasons — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Leniency notice)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission
   (Case T-30/05) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - European haberdashery market (needles) - Product market sharing - Geographic market sharing - Fine - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duty to state reasons - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Leniency notice)
   (2007/C 247/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: William Prym GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany) and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg) (represented by: H. Meyer-Lindemann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) in so far as it relates to the applicants, and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG under Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) at EUR 27 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders William Prym and Prym Consumer to bear 90 % of their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by William Prym and Prym Consumer.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2005.


title: Case T-381/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Borrajo Canelo and Others v OHIM (Community trade mark — Proceedings for revocation — Community word mark PALMA MULATA — Genuine use — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctiveness)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Borrajo Canelo and Others v OHIM
   (Case T-381/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Proceedings for revocation - Community word mark PALMA MULATA - Genuine use - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctiveness))
   2014/C 129/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ana Borrajo Canelo (Madrid, Spain); Carlos Borrajo Canelo (Madrid); and Luis Borrajo Canelo (Madrid) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tecnoazúcar (Havana, Cuba) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2012 (Case R 2265/2010-2) concerning proceedings for revocation between Ana Borrajo Canelo, Carlos Borrajo Canelo and Luis Borrajo Canelo, of the one part, and Tecnoazúcar, of the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Ana Borrajo Canelo, Mr Carlos Borrajo Canelo and Mr Luis Borrajo Canelo to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case C-251/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 2 May 2016 – Edward Cussens, John Jennings, Vincent Kingston v T. G. Brosman

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 2 May 2016 – Edward Cussens, John Jennings, Vincent Kingston v T. G. Brosman
   (Case C-251/16)
   (2016/C 243/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Edward Cussens, John Jennings, Vincent Kingston

      Defendant: T. G. Brosman

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is the principle of abuse of rights, as recognised in the judgment of the Court in Halifax as being applicable in the sphere of VAT, directly effective against an individual in the absence of a national measure, whether legislative or judicial, giving effect to that principle, in circumstances where, as here, the redefining of the pre-sale transactions and the purchaser sales transactions (collectively referred to as the appellants' transactions), as advocated by the Commissioners, would give rise to a liability on the part of the appellants to VAT, where such liability, on the proper application of the provisions of national legislation in force at the relevant time to the appellants' transactions, did not arise?

               2)

               If the answer to question 1) is that the principle of abuse of rights is directly effective against an individual, even in the absence of a national measure, whether legislative or judicial, giving effect to that principle, was the principle sufficiently clear and precise to be applied to the appellants' transactions, which were completed before the judgment of the Court in Halifax was delivered, and, in particular, having regard to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of the appellants' legitimate expectations?

               3)

               If the principle of abuse of rights applies to the appellants' transactions so that they are to be redefined –

                           a)

                           what is the legal mechanism by means of which the VAT due on the appellants' transactions is assessed and is collected, since no VAT is due, assessable or collectable in accordance with national law, and

                           b)

                           how are the national courts to impose such liability?

               4)

               In determining whether the essential aim of the appellants' transactions was to obtain a tax advantage, should the national court consider the pre-sale transactions (which it has been found were effected solely for tax reasons) in isolation, or must the aim of the appellants' transactions as a whole be considered?

               5)

               Is s. 4(9) of the VAT Act to be treated as national legislation implementing the Sixth Directive (1), notwithstanding that it is incompatible with the legislative provision envisaged in Article 4(3) of the Sixth Directive, on the proper application of which the appellants, in relation to the supply before first occupation of the properties, would be treated as taxable persons, notwithstanding that there had been a previous disposal which was chargeable to tax?

               6)

               If s. 4(9) is incompatible with the Sixth Directive, are the appellants, by relying on that sub-section, engaged in an abuse of rights contrary to the principles recognised in the judgment of the Court in Halifax?

               7)

               In the alternative, if s. 4(9) is not incompatible with the Sixth Directive, have the appellants achieved a tax advantage which is contrary to the purpose of the Directive and/or s. 4?

               8)

               Even if s. 4(9) is not to be treated as implementing the Sixth Directive, does the principle of abuse of rights as established by the judgment of the Court in Halifax nevertheless apply to the transactions in issue by reference to the criteria laid down by the Court in Halifax?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment

      OJ L 145, p. 1


title: Case T-28/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission
   (Case T-28/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and C. Giolito, and subsequently by S. Noë, C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 5 December 1996 in the case of Happy Sports Michl OHG against Finanzamt Landshut (Case C-79/97)

text:
No C 131/6          [ EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 4. 97
    in difficulty and in which competition is very severe in          Munich) of 5 December 1996, received at the Court
    the Community. The Maribel II/III scheme thus                     Registry on 24 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
    constitutes a general measure which, for budgetary                the case of Happy Sports Michl OHG against Finanzamt
    reasons, cannot yet be extended to all sectors .                  ( Tax Office ) Landshut on the following questions:
    The Commission has in no way demonstrated in the                  1 . Does the hiring out at an hourly charge of sports
    contested decision to what extent the Maribel II/III                   facilities to users ( for example of tennis courts to
    scheme is alleged to have an adverse effect on trade                   tennis players ) come under the 'leasing or letting of
    between Member States . It confines itself to deducing                 immovable property' within the meaning of the tax
    from     the   abovementioned      statement     that  such            exemption in Article 13B ( b ) of the sixth Council
    undertakings are ' by definition' in competition with                  Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States
    the products of foreign undertakings,
                                                                           relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                           value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment (') ('the
— ( In the alternative ) Maribel II/III is compatible with                 sixth Directive')?
    the common market . The Maribel II/III scheme is
    intended to boost employment by the creation of less              2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative : is
    skilled jobs,                                                          'leasing or letting of immovable property excluding . . .
                                                                           lettings of permanently installed equipment' in
— ( In the alternative ) Breach of the principle of                        Article 13B ( b ) ( 3 ) of the sixth Directive to be
    proportionality                                                        interpreted as meaning that the liability to tax on
                                                                           lettings of equipment encompasses the letting of the
                                                                           surrounding building and immovable property, or is
    The recovery imposed is a disproportionate sanction in                 the hiring out of sports facilities to be split up into an
    relation to the infringement committed. In view of the                 exempt letting of immovable property and a taxable
    uncertainty as to the definition of a 'general measure',               letting of equipment ?
    it is difficult to regard the infringement as 'serious'.
    Nor is it clear from the contested decision what effect           (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
    the measure has on trade between Member States . It is
    only in the enacting terms that the Commission
    requires the Belgian State to recover the aid, without,
    however, referring to the grounds on which it took the
    decision to do so .
                                                                      Action brought on 25 February 1997 by MD Foods Amba
    Breach of the principles of proportionality, sound                and Danske Mejeriers Fællesorganisation, acting on behalf
    administration and legal certainty, of the rights of the          of Kløvermælk Amba, Løgismose Produktion A/S,
    defence and of legitimate expectations: the                       Mejeriselskabet Vesthimmerland, Nordex Food A/S,
    Commission should have had recourse to less far                  Sinai Landmejeri, c/o Gunnar Larsen, and Sædager
    reaching measures, such as already requesting, pending            Andelsmejeri against Commission of the European
    the procedure pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC                                            Communities
    Treaty, that payment of the ( continuing) aid be                                             ( Case C-81/97)
    deferred,
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/14 )
— ( In the alternative ) Absolute impossibility of recovery
    in view of the large number of undertakings                       On 25 February 1997, a case was referred to the Court of
    concerned .                                                       Justice of the European Communities which had been
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance by MD Foods
                                                                      Amba and Danske Mejeriers Faellesorganisation, acting on
                                                                      behalf of Klovermaslk Amba and Others. In the case,
                                                                      which had been given the number T- 13 9/96, the Court of
                                                                      First Instance issued a referral order and referred the case
                                                                      to the Court of Justice in order that the latter might rule
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht               on the application for annulment.
Miinchen by order of that court of 5 December 1996 in
the case of Happy Sports Michl OHG against Finanzamt                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             Landshut
                        ( Case C-79/97)                               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
                          ( 97/C 131/13 )                             those in Case T-139/96 , MD Foods Amba and Others v.
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities (*).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (') OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 , p . 28 .
European Communities by order of the Fourteenth
Chamber of the Finanzgericht Miinchen ( Finance Court,


title: Case C-185/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on  14/04/2006  — The Queen on the application of British Telecommunications plc v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 14/04/2006 — The Queen on the application of British Telecommunications plc v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-185/06)
   (2006/C 154/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: British Telecommunications plc

      Defendant: Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the European law right to the repayment of improperly levied sums by tax authorities, referred to by the ECJ in paragraph 84 of the Judgment in Metallgesellschaft v. CIR (Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98), apply equally to the repayment of sums paid voluntarily by a taxpayer to a tax authority in error (where the tax authority did not contribute to that error and had no reason to be aware of it), or is it a matter for domestic law?

               2.

               If European law does confer a right to the repayment of such sums in such circumstances, does it also give rise to a right to interest on the amounts repaid, or is it a matter for domestic law, as suggested by paragraph 86 of the Judgment of the ECJ in Metallgesellschaft?

               3.

               If European law does confer a right to interest on the repayment of such sums in such circumstances is that a right to simple interest or to compound interest?


title: Case T-116/09: Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/42

         Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission
   (Case T-116/09)
   2009/C 113/85
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F.Tuytschaever, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty are not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met;

               —

               in subsidiary order, annul the decision in its entirety on account of the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5995 final of 21 October 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the restructuring aid to be paid out by the French authorities to FagorBrandt company, subject to a number of conditions [C 44/2007 (ex N 460/2007)]. The applicant is a competitor to the beneficiary of the aid and has participated in the investigation procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-115/09 Electrolux v Commission.


title: Case T-574/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Kozmetika Afrodita v EUIPO — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (KOZMeTIKA AFRODITA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark KOZMeTIKA AFRODITA — Earlier national word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and earlier national figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Kozmetika Afrodita v EUIPO — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (KOZMeTIKA AFRODITA)
   (Case T-574/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark KOZMeTIKA AFRODITA - Earlier national word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and earlier national figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 419/56)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. (Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) (represented by: B. Grešak, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pedro Núñez Martín (Madrid, Spain) and Carmen Guillermina Machado Montesinos (Madrid)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2015 (case R 2577/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Núñez Martín and Ms Machado Montesinos and, on the other, Kozmetika Afrodita.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case C-117/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 4 March 2011 — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 4 March 2011 — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-117/11)
   2011/C 145/20
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               What particular factors does the Referring Court have to take into account when deciding whether, in circumstances such as those of the present case, a taxable person is providing a single taxable supply of parking services or two separate supplies, one of parking and one of transport of passengers?
               In particular:

                           (a)

                           Is this case covered by the reasoning adopted by the Court of Justice in Case C-349/96 Card Protection Plan and Case C-41/04 Levob. In particular, can the transport services in question be regarded as ancillary to the parking services or so closely linked to them that they form, objectively, a single indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to split?

                           (b)

                           In considering question 1(a), what account should the Referring Court take of the costs of providing the transport services, as opposed to the parking services, in accordance with paragraphs 24-26 of the ECJ's judgment in Joined Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 Madgett and Baldwin, in assessing whether or not the transport services are ancillary to the parking services?

                           (c)

                           In the light of the ECJ's judgment in Case C-572/07 Tellmer, in particular paragraphs 21-24, should the Referring Court when answering question 1(a) take account of the fact that the transport element of the supplies could be (but is not in fact) provided in a variety of ways (for example, the taxable person could provide those transport services using a third party provider who invoices the taxable person or could use a third party provider who contracts directly with the customer and separately charges for the transport services) and to what extent (if at all) is it relevant whether or not the contract gives the customer the right to choose between the different manners in which the transport element could be provided?

               2.

               When the Referring Court is considering whether or not there is a single indivisible economic supply in answering question 1(a), what account should it take of the principle of fiscal neutrality?
               In particular:

                           (a)

                           Does the answer depend on whether or not the taxable person also provides parking services or transport services separately to other groups of customer?

                           (b)

                           Does the answer depend on how other transport services to and from airports, not provided by operators of parking services, are treated under national law?

                           (c)

                           Does the answer depend on whether or not other instances of the provision by taxable persons of parking and transport services (not involving transport to and from airports) are treated under national law as constituting two distinct supplies, one taxable and one zero-rated?

                           (d)

                           Does the answer depend on whether or not the taxable person can show that the services it provides are in competition with other similar services involving both a parking and a transport element, whether provided by the same supplier or provided by two separate suppliers? In particular, does the answer depend on whether the taxable person can show that consumers who wish to use their cars to perform part of the journey to the airport can obtain parking and transport to the airport from individual and separate suppliers, for example by parking at a location near a train station and transport by train from that location to the airport or by parking at a location near an airport and another form of public transport to the airport?

                           (e)

                           How is the Referring Court to take account of the conclusions reached by the ECJ in Case C-94/09 Commission v France in relation to the principle of fiscal neutrality and transport services in that case?

               3.

               Does Community law and, in particular, the principle of fiscal neutrality, preclude a provision of domestic law which excludes zero-rating for transport services between an airport and a car park where the person providing the transport element and the person supplying the car parking element are the same person or connected persons?