title: Application brought on 12 December 1996 by A. van Bennekom v. Council and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-206/96)

text:
8 . 3 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/21
remuneration of freelance interpreters on the basis of                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
agreements concluded every five years with the AIIC                     should:
('Association Internationale des Interpretes de Confer
ence'). On 8 July 1996 , the applicant requested the                    1 . declare that the European Economic Community is
defendant to reimburse the Community tax paid by her                          liable in damages to the applicants;
since 1989 and to declare that her income would, in the
future, no longer be subject to Community tax. The                      2 . declare that the European Economic Community is
request was rejected by the Commission in a letter of                         liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered
8 August 1996 . An appeal against that decision lodged by                     by the applicant as a result of the application of
the applicant on 18 September 1996, was rejected by the                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March
defendant by letter of 21 October 1996 .                                      1984 (*), and the application of Council Regulation
                                                                              ( EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 (2) amending
The applicant submits that the decision contained in the                      Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84, in so far as no provision
letter of 21 October 1996 should be annulled on the                           was made in those Regulations for a representative
following grounds:                                                            reference quantity to be allocated to SLOM assignees
                                                                              who had delivered no milk in the reference year
— The contested decision is based on an incorrect and                         chosen by the Member State concerned pursuant to an
      unlawful     application     and   interpretation   of the              undertaking under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/
      Agreements with AIIC.                                                   77 ( 3 ) of 17 May 1977;
      The defendant acted unlawfully and contrary to the                3 . declare that the applicant has suffered loss of income
                                                                              in an amount constituted by the difference between
      provisions and the objectives of the Agreements
                                                                              the income, including turnover and herd increase,
      ( equality of treatment as regards the fiscal situation of              which in the normal course of affairs he would have
      all freelance interpreters recruited by the Commission)
      by applying the Agreements in such a way that the                       obtained from the quantities of milk which he should
      applicant was obliged to pay Community tax on top                       have delivered if, during the period between 1 April
      of the national income tax paid in her country of                        1984 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation
                                                                              ( EEC) No 857/84 ) and 31 March 1994 (the date of
      residence, namely Switzerland, during the years 1989
      to 1993 and can obtain reimbursement of Community                       expiry of the 1993/1994 period of levy), he had had
      tax since 1994 only under the strict conditions laid                    available to him the reference quantity of milk to
                                                                              which he was entitled and, on the other hand, the
      down in Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement for the period
       1994 to 1998 .                                                         income which he actually received during the
                                                                              abovementioned period;
— There is no legal basis for the imposition of                         4.    declare that interest shall accrue on the amounts of
       Community tax on the applicant.                                        income owing to the applicant with effect from the
                                                                               date of delivery of the Court's judgment, at the rate of
       The provisions in the Agreements with AIIC under                        8% per annum, or at such rate as the Court may
       which the income of freelance interpreters is made                      deem fit, until the date of full and final settlement;
       subject to Community tax are null and void because
       there is no legal basis which enables the defendant or           5 . order the defendants to pay the costs.
       any of the other parties to the Agreements to deduct,
       on the basis of a private agreement, Community tax
       from the remuneration of the applicant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The present case concerns the partial transfer of a SLOM
                                                                         holding during the currency of a SLOM agreement.
                                                                         The applicant maintains that, with effect from the entry
                                                                         into force of the additional levy system until the 1994/
 Application brought on 12 December 1996 by A. van
 Bennekom v. Council and Commission of the European                      1995 levy ^ period, the quota to be allocated to him on
                             Communities                                 the basis of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2055/93 (4 )
                                                                         was -wrongly withheld. The European Community is
                          ( Case T-206/96)                               responsible for the resulting damage on the basis of the
                             ( 97/C 74/45 )                              second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty on
                                                                         account of an infringement of the principle of the
                                                                         protection of legitimate expectations and for exceeding its
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         powers .
 An application was brought before the Court of First                    (')  OJ  No   L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 13 .
 Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                     (2)  OJ  No   L 84, 29 . 3 . 1989 , p. 2 .
 1996 against the Council and Commission of the                          (3)  OJ  No   L 131 , 26 . 5 . 1977, p . 1 .
 European Communities by A. van Bennekom, residing at                    (4 ) OJ  No   L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p . 8 .
 Maasbommel (Netherlands ), represented by A. A. M. van
 Beek, of the Tilburg bar.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 July 2002 in Case C-371/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Liberexim BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Importation by removal of goods from customs arrangements — Transport by road under the TIR arrangements or the external Community transit arrangements — Changing of tractor — Unloading of trailer and destruction of seals — Removal of goods from customs supervision)

text:
C 233/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         28.9.2002
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                      court between Liberexim BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                     on the interpretation of Article 7(3) of the Sixth Council
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            Directive (77/338/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
a judgment on 6 June 2002, in which it:                                     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                            Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
                                                                            ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
                                                                            92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/
      1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                            388 and introducing simplification measures with regard to
      States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
                                                                            value added tax (OJ 1992 L 384, p. 47), the Court (Fifth
      Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
      Fund, in so far as it excludes the Kingdom of the Netherlands         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges;
      from Community financing in the sum of NLG 32 746 529 by
                                                                            J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-
      way of aid for the processing of skimmed milk into casein and
                                                                            trar, has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it has
      caseinates;
                                                                            ruled:
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action by the Kingdom of the
      Netherlands;
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      five sixths of the costs and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to
      pay one sixth of the cost;                                            1.    Where goods, transported by road under the external Com-
                                                                                munity transit arrangements, are placed on the Community
                                                                                market after a number of irregularities have been committed in
4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                                respect of those goods in various Member States, the goods
                                                                                cease to be covered by those arrangements within the meaning
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.                                                        of Article 7(3) 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, as amended by Council
                                                                                Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending
                                                                                Directive 77/388 and introducing simplification measures with
                                                                                regard to value added tax, on the territory of the Member State
                                                                                where the first operation which can be regarded as a removal of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           the goods from customs supervision was carried out.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                Any act or omission which prevents, if only for a short time,
                             11 July 2002                                         the competent customs authority from gaining access to goods
                                                                                under customs supervision and from monitoring them as
                                                                                provided for by the Community customs provisions must be
in Case C-371/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              regarded as a removal of the goods in question from customs
from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Liberexim BV v                               supervision.
                Staatssecretaris van Financiën ( 1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Importation by removal of goods
from customs arrangements — Transport by road under
the TIR arrangements or the external Community transit                      2.    Removal of goods from customs supervision does not require
arrangements — Changing of tractor — Unloading of trailer                         intent, but, instead, only that certain objective conditions be
and destruction of seals — Removal of goods from customs                          met.
                              supervision)
                           (2002/C 233/03)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                          (1 ) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-371/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a


title: Case T-220/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Commission v EU Research Projects (Arbitration clause — Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a ‘User-friendly information society’ — Withdrawal from the project — Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced by the Commission — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/4

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Commission v EU Research Projects
   (Case T-220/10) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a ‘User-friendly information society’ - Withdrawal from the project - Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced by the Commission - Default interest - Procedure by default)
   2012/C 373/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Bambara and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, assisted by C. Erkelens, lawyer)

      Defendant: EU Research Projects Ltd (Hungerford, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the Commission, together with default interest, under contract IST 2001-34850.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders EU Research Projects Ltd to repay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 102 039,32, plus accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 4.80 % per annum from 29 December 2006 until the date of full payment of the amount due;

               2.

               Orders EU Research Projects Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-522/07 and C-65/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dinter GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (C-522/07), Europol Frost-Food GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-65/08) (Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Validity — Additional note — Apple juice concentrate)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/2

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dinter GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (C-522/07), Europol Frost-Food GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-65/08)
   (Joined Cases C-522/07 and C-65/08) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Validity - Additional note - Apple juice concentrate)
   2009/C 312/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dinter GmbH (C-522/07), Europol Frost-Food GmbH (C-65/08)

      Defendants: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (C-522/07), Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-65/08)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation and validity of Additional Note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Pure concentrated apple juice, with a Brix value of 66.8, not containing added sugar — Classification of that product under tariff subheading 2009 7999 (apple juice not containing added sugar) or under subheading 2106 9098 (food preparations not elsewhere specified or included) — Limits on the Commission’s powers under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 to specify the content of the tariff headings

      Operative part of the judgment

   Additional Note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) No 1776/2001 of 7 September 2001, (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 and (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, is invalid to the extent that it excludes natural apple juice concentrate from heading 2009.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

      OJ C 107, 26.4.2008


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 24 June 1998 in the case of Holz Geenen GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion München (Case C-309/98)

text:
C 312/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
Regulation. On the other hand, it must presumably, be                1. What should the requirements be for furnishing proof
open to the Commission to bring proceedings in respect of                 of the place where an irregularity or offence was
decisions of the President of the Office directly under                   actually committed in the course of a transport
Article 173. That the Member States should be differently                 operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
situated from the Commission in the matter of challenging                 (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
such decisions seems constitutionally anomalous.                          Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
                                                                          p. 1))? Is a statement from the carnet holder and the
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997, p. 39.                                           testimony of the lorry driver who has effected the
(2) Case 294/83, [1986] ECR 1339.                                         transport for the carnet holder sufficient or must the
(3) Joined Cases 193/87 and 194/87, [1989] ECR 1045.                      proof comprise documents which unambiguously show
                                                                          that the competent authorities in the other Member
                                                                          State reached the conclusion that the irregularity or
                                                                          offence was committed on their territory?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht              2. If the Court of Justice takes the view that the actual
München by order of that court of 24 June 1998 in the                     place where the irregularity or offence was commited
case of Holz Geenen GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion                      can be proved on the basis of statements of the carnet
                           München                                        holder and the testimony of the lorry driver who
                                                                          effected the transport operation, are the third and
                       (Case C-309/98)                                    fourth subparagraphs of Article 454(3) of Directive
                         (98/C 312/10)                                    (EEC) No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                          they also apply in cases where the charges were
                                                                          recovered in the Member State where the irregularity
                                                                          or offence was detected, even though it has been
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          proved that the irregularity or offence was actually
European Communities by order of the Third Senate of
                                                                          commited in another Member State?
the Finanzgericht München (Finance Court, Munich) of
24 June 1998, received at the Court Registry on 10 August
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Geenen
GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion München (Principal
Revenue Office, Munich) on the following question:
Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 of 30 July
1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the           Appeal brought on 14 August 1998 by the Union Euro-
Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 204, 31.7.1997, p. 8) Ð                  peÂenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entrepri-
in this case rectangular wood blocks, 48 or 85 mm wide              ses (UEAPME) against the judgment delivered on 17 June
72 mm high, used in the construction of window frames,               1998 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
consisting of layers of wood glued together with the grain           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
running parallel and with slightly rounded edges Ð                   in Case T-135/96 between the Union EuropeÂenne de
invalid?                                                             l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises
                                                                     (UEAPME), supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des
                                                                     Petites et Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel
                                                                     (CGPME), Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Natio-
                                                                     naal Christelijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Konink-
                                                                     lijke Vereniging MKB-Nederland, FeÂdeÂration des Artisans,
                                                                     Confederazione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confar-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof            tigianato), Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereini-
by order of that court of 7 July 1998 in the case of Haupt-          gung der Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV
zollamt Neubrandenburg against Leszek Labis trading                  (BFH), and the Council of the European Union, supported
as Przedsiebiorstwo Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans',                     by the Commission of the European Communities
                            PL-Reda                                                        (Case C-316/98 P)
                       (Case C-310/98)
                                                                                (98/C 312/12)
                         (98/C 312/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1998
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 July 1998, received at the              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Court Registry on 10 August 1998, for a preliminary                  Case T-135/96 between the Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisa-
ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg                    nat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME),
against Leszek Labis trading as Przedsiebiorstwo                     supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des Petites et
Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans', PL-Reda on the                    Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel (CGPME),
following questions:                                                 Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Nationaal Christe-


title: Case T-480/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICOCENTER)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/67

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICOCENTER)
   (Case T-480/09)
   2010/C 24/119
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 — R 1045/2008-4.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter S.r.l.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER’ (Application No 4 935 185) in respect of services in Class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-308/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/57

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-308/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/116
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-66/95)

text:
No C 137/26         T EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by ATIC —                            1995 by Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, resident in Kehlen
Associagao Tecnica da Industria de Cimento against the                  ( Luxembourg ),       represented      by     Dieter      Rogalla
         Commission of the European Communities                         ( Rechtsanwalt) of Sprockhovel ( Germany), with an address
                          ( Case T-63/95 )                              for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Armin
                                                                        Machmer, 1 Rue Roger Barthel, Luxembourg.
                            ( 95/C 137/62 )
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Commission of the European                        ( a ) declare the Commission obliged to continue covering
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             the applicant under the Joint Sickness Insurance
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February                           Scheme against the relevant risks, and should grant
1995 by ATIC — Associa^ao Tecnica da Industria de                             such declaration, pending an appropriate revision of
Cimento , whose seat is at 54/2 Avenida 5 de Outubro,                         the Staff Regulations, in the context of constructive
Lisbon, represented by Mario Joao Marques Mendes, of the                      development of the law and the exercise of discretion
Portuguese Bar, whose chambers are at 63/6 Rua Castilho,                      'extra legem ';
1250 Lisbon, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                               ( b ) declare the Commission obliged , in relation to the Staff
                                                                              Regulations, to use its right to make proposals to the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  Council of the European Union in such a way as to give
                                                                              divorced spouses of officials the possibility of obtaining
— annul the Commission 's decision of 30 November 1994                        provisional cover in accordance with ( a ), to the extent
    ( IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement ), and specifically                       that, in the exercise of their right of freedom of
    Articles 1 , 2 ( 1 ), 2 (2 ) ( b ) and 5 thereof, so far as it            movement, they cannot be covered by any statutory
    concerns ATIC ,                                                           system of sickness provision in their country of origin
                                                                              and if they have their own entitlement to a pension
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on ATIC,                        following a rights adjustment;
— oder the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.                    ( c ) in the alternative, in the context of the social provisions
                                                                              of the European treaties, including the Treaty of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           Maastricht, and of the Social Chapter, indicate to the
                                                                              Government of the applicant's country of origin
The application is based on the following defects, which                      ( Germany ) the gap revealed in German social law and
affect the legality of the Commission decision:                               request the Government to take appropriate action to
                                                                              close that gap, so as to ensure that persons whose social
— defects relating to the infringement of the rights of the                   rights lie not with a Member State of the European
    defence,                                                                  Communities but, as in the applicant's case, exclusively
                                                                              with Community institutions do not suffer curtailment
— defects relating to the absence of proof or the incorrect                   or even removal of their cover against sickness risks in
    assessment of the available proof in charging the                         the event of their returning to their country of
    applicant with the alleged infringements,                                 origin;
— a defect relating to the incorrect legal assessment of the
    applicability of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty to               ( d ) order the Commission to pay the costs.
    associations of undertakings,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— a defect relating to the breach of the principle of
    proportionality in imposing the fine .
                                                                        The applicant, a former official of the Court of Justice and
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities, and since
                                                                        1 April 1994 the divorced wife of an official of the European
                                                                        Parliament, objects to the fact that, under Article 72 ( lb ) of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations, she cannot continue to enjoy the
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Hedwig                            benefit of the Community health care scheme after the cover
Kuchlenz-Winter against the Commission of the European                  provided for her by that Article expires on 1 April 1995 .
                             Communities
                          ( Case T-66/95 )                              Following her marriage, the applicant left the employment
                                                                        of the Communities after seven and a half years' service .
                            ( 95/C 137/63 )
                                                                        During her marriage, she enjoyed the cover of the Joint
                                                                        Sickness Insurance Scheme as the wife of an official . She
              (Language of the case: German)                            argues that, because in her native Germany she cannot be
                                                                       covered against health risks either by statutory or by private
An action against the Commission of the European                        sickness insurance, she is obliged to continue living in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Luxembourg after her divorce in order to avoid losing the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                     relevant protection.
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/27
The applicant argues that the Community principle of                         6 . Inadequate structure of the oral hearing.
freedom of movement is thereby infringed .
                                                                             7. Reliance on self-incriminating evidence .
She also argues that that provision of the Staff Regulations
infringes the principle of equal treatment.                                  8.  Reformulation of the Commission 's case and
In the applicant's opinion, it is for the Community                              termination of proceedings against certain German
institutions to close the gap in the relevant provisions of the                  and Spanish companies .
Staff Regulations in the fulfilment of their duty of care
towards the citizen .                                                   II . Manifest errors of reasoning and interference
                                                                             The applicant expounds that the decision is based on
                                                                             the consideration that there exists a ' single and
                                                                             continuous agreement' in the west European cement
                                                                             industry. This theory, that the applicant contests, has
Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Aker SA against the                    led the Commission into errors of appreciation and
          Commission of the European Communities                             interpretation in relation to the applicant,
                          ( Case T-70/95 )                                   concerning:
                            ( 95/C 137/64 )
                                                                             1 . its supposed participation in the Cembureau
                 (Language of the case: English)                                 Agreement; and
                                                                             2 . its supposed participation in the European Task
An action against the Commission of the European                                 Force .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February
1995 by Aker SA represented by Mr Nicholas Forwood and                       The applicant submits that there is no basis for any
Mr John Cook with an address for service in Luxembourg at                    finding that it was guilty of behaviour capable of
the chambers of Arendt & Medernach, Boite Postale 39,                        constituting an intentional breach of Article 85 ( 1 ) of
L-2010 Luxembourg.                                                           the EC Treaty.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           III . Lack of jurisdiction and discrimination
— annul wholly or alternatively in part the decision of the                  1 . The applicant maintains that, given that it is an
     Commission of 30 November 1994 in so far as it relates
                                                                                undertaking established outside the European
     to the applicant,                                                           Community, the Commission was obliged to state
                                                                                clearly in the statement of objections and in the
— cancel or, alternatively, reduce the fine imposed by                           decision the basis on which it asserted jurisdiction
     Article 9 , and
                                                                                over it. The Commission's failure to explain its
                                                                                position on this matter constitutes a breach of the
— award the costs of the application to the applicant.                           right to be heard and of Article 190 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                             2 . The applicant further submits that the Commission
The grounds, on the basis of which the legality of the                           did not respect its obligation to exercise its
contested decision is challenged, can be summarized as                           jurisdiction in a uniform and non-discriminatory
follows .                                                                        manner as between all the non-EC undertakings
                                                                                involved in the procedures .
  I. Infringements of essential procedural requirements
                                                                       IV .  Fines
       1.  Failure   to      disclose  the  full  statement     of
           objections .
                                                                             1 . The applicant emphasizes that the Commission has
       2 . Failure to translate supporting documents into the                    not established that its conduct can be regarded as
           language of the case .                                                intentional or negligent, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation 17/62 .
       3 . Inaccurate quotation from documents .
                                                                             2 . The applicant submits that the Commission has
       4 . Failure to give the applicant access to the entirety of               failed to explain the individual basis of the fine
           the Commission 's file and to other relevant files .                  against it.
       5 . Failure to disclose the responses of other addressees
           of the statement of objections .


title: Case C-307/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 of San Sebastián (Spain) by order of that court of 6 July 2005 in Yolanda Del Cerro Alonso v Osakidetza (Servicio Vasco de Salud) (Basque Health Service)

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 of San Sebastián (Spain) by order of that court of 6 July 2005 in Yolanda Del Cerro Alonso v Osakidetza (Servicio Vasco de Salud) (Basque Health Service)
   (Case C-307/05)
   (2005/C 257/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 of San Sebastián (Spain) of 6 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Yolanda Del Cerro Alonso and Osakidetza (Servicio Vasco de Salud) (Basque Health Service) on the following questions:

               1.

               Where Directive 1999/70/EC (1) provides that fixed-term workers are not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers, does this also refer to remuneration?

         If the answer is affirmative:

               2.

               Is the fact that Article 44 of Law 55/2003 of 16 December 2003 of the Framework Statute for Statutory Workers in the Health Service provides that temporary workers are not entitled to the length of service allowance recognised for permanent workers an adequate and objective reason?

               3.

               Are the agreements concluded between the staff unions and the administration adequate and objective reasons for not recognising the length of service allowance for temporary workers?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ L 175, of 10/07/1999 p. 43).


title: Case T-406/03: Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Nicolas Ravailhe against Committee of the Regions of the European Union

text:
21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 47/31
Action brought on 16 December 2003 by A against the                        Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Nicolas Ravailhe
       Court of Justice of the European Communities                        against Committee of the Regions of the European Union
                          (Case T-404/03)                                                           (Case T-406/03)
                           (2004/C 47/60)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/61)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 16 December 2003 by A,                      An action against the Committee of the Regions of the
represented by Clara Marhuenda, lawyer, with an address for                European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance
service in Luxembourg.                                                     of the European Communities on 15 December 2003 by
                                                                           Nicolas Ravailhe, residing in Amiens (France), represented by
                                                                           Jean Philippe Brodsky, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the two decisions adopted by the defendant, in its             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      capacity as appointing authority, on 10 April 2003 and
      6 June 2003 and, in so far as necessary, the decision of             —     order the defendant to reinstate the applicant in his post
      the defendant’s complaints committee of 16 September                       and restore his rights under the Staff Regulations as a
      2003 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;                                  member of the temporary staff of the Committee of the
                                                                                Regions with effect from 1 March 2003, taking account
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 1 as                       of his salary and allowances as a member of the temporary
      token damages for the non-material damage suffered;                        staff (March 2003-April 2003), subsequently as unem-
                                                                                ployed (May 2003-October 2003) and of any other
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      income received until he is actually reinstated;
                                                                           —     In the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the
                                                                                applicant compensation in accordance with Article 47 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
                                                                                European Communities, namely three months’ salary and
Following several absences of the applicant, an official of the                  allowances as a member of the temporary staff in Grade
Court of Justice, on sick leave, the defendant, in its capacity as               A 7, step 3, together with default interest with effect from
appointing authority, referred the matter to an invalidity                       15 June 2003;
committee in order to determine whether the official could be
granted retirement on grounds of invalidity.                               —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages of
                                                                                EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-
                                                                                material damage suffered;
The committee met on 9 April 2003 and decided that the
official was fit to return to duties, but proposed that the official       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
be granted half-time working hours on medical grounds. By
letter of 10 April 2003, the Court of Justice called on the
applicant to return to work and granted authorisation for half-
time working until 6 June 2003 inclusive. By decision of
6 June 2003, the half-time working hours on medical grounds                Pleas in law and main arguments
was extended by 5 weeks and the applicant was requested to
return to work full-time on 14 July 2003.
                                                                           In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                           of Articles 2(b) and 8 of the Conditions of Employment of
By the present application, the applicant contests those two
                                                                           Other Servants of the European Communities and, in the
decisions, claiming that the opinion of the medical committee
                                                                           alternative, failure to observe the period of notice laid down in
on which they are based is vitiated by a defective statement of
                                                                           Articles 47 and 74 of those Conditions. Furthermore, he
reasons. The applicant further claims that at least two members
                                                                           alleges breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
of the committee did not have available all the information
                                                                           officials and the principles of legitimate expectations, sound
necessary in order to make a decision in full knowledge of the
                                                                           administration and the interests of the service.
case.


title: Case T-783/16: Action brought on 09 November 2016 — Government of Gibraltar v Commission

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/39

         Action brought on 09 November 2016 — Government of Gibraltar v Commission
   (Case T-783/16)
   (2017/C 022/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Government of Gibraltar (Gibraltar) (represented by: M. Llamas, QC, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, F.-C. Laprévote and C. Froitzheim, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission decision of 1 October 2014 in the State aid case SA.34914(C/2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that, in finding that the tax rulings could be a new aid, the contested decision errs in fact and law and is based on inadequate reasoning.
               In support of this plea, the applicant submits as follows: first, that the Commission erred in law in not concluding from the outset that, should the practice of tax rulings or the individual tax rulings constitute State aid, they would be an existing aid; second, that the Commission erred in fact in stating that section 42 of the Income Tax Act of 2010 is the legal basis of the tax rulings; and third, that the decision lacks reasoning when claiming that the tax rulings practice constitutes new aid, an assertion that is contradicted by the claim that the rulings practice amounts to a ‘de facto scheme’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in fact and law and is based on inadequate reasoning.
               In support of this plea, the applicant submits as follows: first, that the elements needed to justify an extension of the opening of a State aid investigation are manifestly absent from the case; second, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and an error of fact in finding that the tax rulings provide an advantage; third, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and an error of fact in finding that the tax rulings are selective; fourth, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and an error of fact in finding that the tax rulings are liable to distort competition and/or have an effect on intra-Community trade; and fifth, that the contested decision lacks reasoning.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in law in diverting the Commission's initial investigation and artificially ‘extending’ the Income Tax Act procedure to rulings.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-216/01: Reisebank AG v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Application for access to documents — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)

text:
C 251/10               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 5 August 2003
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
in Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01: P & O European
Ferries (Vizcaya), SA and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v                   in Case T-216/01: Reisebank AG v Commission of the
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                                           European Communities (1)
(State aid — Actions for annulment — Decision terminating
a review procedure initiated under Article 88(2) EC —                     (Action for annulment — Application for access to docu-
Concept of State aid — Purchase of services by the State                  ments — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)
at the market price — Aid having a social character granted
without discrimination related to the origin of the products
concerned — Failure to order a Member State to produce the                                         (2003/C 251/20)
necessary information — Obligation to refund aid —
Legitimate expectations of recipients — Statement of
                              reasons)                                                      (Language of the case: German)
                         (2003/C 251/19)
            (Language of the case: Spanish and English)                   In Case T-216/01: Reisebank AG, established in Frankfurt am
                                                                          Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer,
                                                                          lawyers, against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for annulment
In Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01, P&O European                       of the Hearing Officer's decision of 14 August 2001 refusing
Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, formerly Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA,               to allow the applicant access to certain documents concerning
established in Bilbao (Spain), represented by Sir Jeremy Lever            the closure of the proceeding in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 —
QC, D. Beard, barrister, J. Ellison, solicitor, and J. Folguera           bank fees for currency exchange in the Euro zone, initiated
Crespo, lawyer, v Commission of the European Communities                  against other banks — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
(Agent: J. Flett): Application for annulment of Commission                Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
Decision 2001/247/EC of 29 November 2000 on the aid                       P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
scheme implemented by Spain in favour of the shipping com-                an order on 9 July 2003, in which it:
pany Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (OJ 2001 L 89, p. 28), the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), com-
posed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi,
M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
5 August 2003, in which it:
                                                                          1.   Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
1.   Dismisses the actions;
                                                                          2.   Orders the applicant to bear its own and the defendant's costs,
2.   Orders the applicant, in each case, to bear its own costs and             including the costs of the interlocutory proceedings in Case
     those incurred by the Commission;                                         T-216/01 R.
3.   Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.01.
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.07.2001 and C 227 of 11.08.2001.


title: Case T-225/07: Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Thomson Sales Europe v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/36

         Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Thomson Sales Europe v Commission
   (Case T-225/07)
   (2007/C 211/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Thomson Sales Europe (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: F.Goguel and F. Foucault, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Before ruling, order disclosure to the parties all of the materials, documents, reports, letters, preparatory works etc which led to the two Regulations No 2376/94 and No 710/95;

               —

               Principally, annul the decision of the Commission REM No 03/05 of 7 May 2007.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision No REM 03/05 of 7 May 2007 holding that the remission of import duties is not justified in the particular case of the applicant. That decision was issued following the application made to the Commission by the French national authorities, who had claimed from the applicant payment of anti-dumping duties on importation of colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand by its subsidiary there, and on which the subsidiary had applied for remission on the basis of Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. (1)

   The applicant considers that it is entitled to the remission on the basis of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, since, in its opinion, it satisfies the two conditions laid down in that provision.
   As regards the first condition (the existence of a special situation), the applicant claims that its situation is certainly special and is the result of, first, the conduct of the Commission which changed its approach to interpretation of the legal provisions on the origin of goods without having properly informed traders, and, second, the conduct of the national authorities who followed the approach adopted by the Commission.
   As regards the second condition referred to in Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (no deception or negligence), the applicant claims that it cannot be considered to have been negligent since it trusted in the validity of the initial position of the Commission's services, who, in the opinion of the applicant, decided not to employ in its case a strict application of the rules of origin but to apply to it the special anti-dumping duties on all the receivers manufactured and exported by its Thailand subsidiary.

      (1)  OJ L 302, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 January 1999 in Case T-264/97: D v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Refusal to grant the applicant the household allowance in respect of his partner)

text:
27.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 86/17
4. Orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     their own costs.                                                                     of 28 January 1999
                                                                      in Case T-264/97: D v. Council of the European Union (1)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                     (Officials Ð Refusal to grant the applicant the household
                                                                                allowance in respect of his partner)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 11 February 1999
                                                                     In Case T-264/97: D, an official of the Council of the
in Case T-200/97: Carmen JimeÂnez v. Office for                      European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
Harmonisation in the Intenal Market (trade marks and                 Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and FrancËoise
                     designs) (OHIM) (1)                             Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
(Officials Ð Competitions Ð Inclusion on the list of                 30 Rue de Cessange, supported by the Kingdom of
suitable candidates Ð Procedural irregularity Ð Principle            Sweden (Agent: Lotti Nordling), v. Council of the
   of non-discrimination Ð Manifest error of assessment)             European Union (Agents: TheÂreÁse Blanchet and Eva
                        (1999/C 86/34)                               Karlsson) Ð application for annulment of the Council's
                                                                     decision refusing to grant the applicant the household
                                                                     allowance in respect of his partner Ð the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)                       Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,
                                                                     President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                     B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
In Case T-200/97: Carmen JimeÂnez, an official of the                given a judgment on 28 January 1999, in which it:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Alicante (Spain), represented by Georges Vandersanden, of
                                                                     1. Dismisses the action.
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v. Office for Harmonisation in the                  2. Orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear
Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                         their own costs.
(Agents: Fernando López de Rego and Antonio Grilli) Ð
application for annulment of the decision of the selection
board of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
Market (trade marks and designs) of 30 October 1996 not
to include the applicant's name on the list drawn up in the
context of the Competition for the drawing-up of a list of
suitable candidates of either sex to fill category C posts as
members of the temporary staff (reference AT/C)' Ð the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; A.
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                       of 10 February 1999
judgment on 11 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                     in Case T-35/98: AndreÂ Hecq and Syndicat des Fonction-
                                                                     naires Internationaux et EuropeÂens (SFIE) v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
1. Annuls the decision of the selection board of the
     Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                 (Officials Ð Bureau of the local Staff Committee Ð
     (trade marks and designs) of 30 October 1996 not to                Elections Ð Duties of the institution Ð Admissibility)
     include the applicant's name on the list drawn up in
     the context of the Compettion for the drawing-up of                                    (1999/C 86/36)
     a list of suitable candidates of either sex to fill
     category C posts as members of the temporary staff                              (Language of the case: French)
     (reference AT/C)'.
                                                                     In Case T-35/98: AndreÂ Hecq, an official of the
2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               Commission of the European Communities, residing in
     Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) to pay the              Brussels, and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux
     costs.                                                          et EuropeÂens (SFIE), established in Brussels, represented
                                                                     by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.                                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
                                                                     Kremer, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
                                                                     Julian Currall) Ð application for annulment of the


title: Case C-8/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA
   (Case C-8/17)
   (2017/C 095/11)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA

      Defendant: Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 219/112/EC, (1) and in particular Articles 63, 167, 168, 178, 179, 180, 182 and 219 thereof, and the principle of neutrality, preclude legislation which has the result that, in circumstances where the seller of the goods, liable for VAT, (i) was subject to a tax inspection which found that the VAT rate that he applied in a given situation was less than the due rate, (ii) paid to the State the additional tax and (iii) seeks to obtain the respective payment from the purchaser, also liable for VAT, the time period for the latter to be able to deduct that additional tax is calculated from the date of issue of the initial invoices and not from the date of issue or receipt of the rectifying documents?

               2.

               If the foregoing question is answered in the negative, do the abovementioned articles of that directive and the principle of neutrality preclude legislation which has the result that, once documents rectifying the initial invoices are received, issued following the tax inspection and payment to the State of the additional tax, for the purpose of obtaining payment of that additional tax, at a time when the period for exercising the right of deduction has already elapsed, it is legitimate for the purchaser to refuse to pay, on the basis that refusal of the passing on of tax is justified where it is impossible to deduct that additional tax?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-23/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/53/EU)

text:
               19.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 18/29

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 1 February 2016
   in Case E-23/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/53/EU)
   (2017/C 18/13)
   In Case E-23/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, as corrected), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 164/2013 of 8 October 2013, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, as corrected), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-266/10 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2010 by Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare și indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2010 in Case T-530/09: Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare și indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/2

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2010 by Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare și indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2010 in Case T-530/09: Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare și indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-266/10 P)
   2011/C 72/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare și indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) (represented by: N.O. Curelea, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   By order of 22 October 2010 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Verona - Sezione Distaccata di Isola della Scala by order of that court of 27 July 1995 and supplement of 4 September 1995 in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori Associati Veneti soc.coop. a r.l. (Case C-273/95)

text:
28 . 10 . 95             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 286/3
— Discrimination, inadequate statement of reasons ( see                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
      Cases C-71 /95 (2 ) and C-155/95 ( 3 )).                             Case T-7/93 (') between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, supported
(') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1219/95 of 30 May 1995                 by Mars GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice
      adopting transitional measures for the application of the tariff     of the European Communities on 18 August 1995 by
      quota arrangements for imports of bananas for the third quarter      Langnese-Iglo GmbH, Hamburg ( Federal Republic of
      of 1995 as a result of the accession of Austria , Finland and        Germany ), represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernard M.
      Sweden ( OJ No L 120 , 31 . 5 . 1995 , p. 20 ).                      Maassen, Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am
( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p . 13 .                               Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(■') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 3 .
                                                                           Chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, L-1450
                                                                           Luxembourg.
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                          1 . set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     the European Communities of 8 June 1995 in Case
Scala by order of that court of 27 July 1995 and supplement                     T-7/93 Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the
of 4 September 1995 in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                     European Communities in so far as it dismissed the
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori                       appellant's action against Commission Decision
                 Associati Veneti soc.coop. a r.l .                             93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 , in a proceeding
                                                                                under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
                           ( Case C-2 73/95                                     IV/34.072 );
                             ( 95/C 286/05 )
                                                                           2 . declare void Articles 1 , 2 and 3 of Commission Decision
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992, in a proceeding
European        Communities         by     order  of the     Pretura            under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     IV/34.072 );
Scala (Verona District Magistrate's Court — Isola della
Scala Division ) of 27 July 1995 , supplemented on                         3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the
4 September 1995 , which were received at the Court                             proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
Registry on 11 August and 12 September 1995 , for a                             costs of the appeal proceedings; or
preliminary ruling in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                 in the alternative,
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori
Associati Veneti soc.coop . a r.l . on the following                            refer the case back to the Court of First Instance of the
question :
                                                                                European Communities .
'Is Regulation ( EEC ) No 3478/92 ( 1 ) and in particular
Articles 10 and 1 1 thereof to be interpreted as meaning that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the date to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
applying the agricultural conversion rate to the processing                Infringement of Community law when appraising the pleas
premium is the date on which the tobacco is delivered to the               in law: ( a ) infringement of the principle of the protection of
processor by the producer group or the date on which the                   legitimate expectations, ( b ) infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of
product is supplied by the individual producer to the group                the Treaty ( effects on competition of the exclusive dealing
itself, and what constitutes " delivery under contract " within            agreements ) and ( c ) infringement of the principles of
the meaning of the abovementioned provisions ?'                            proportionality and of equal treatment .
(') O J No L 351 , 2 . 12 . 1992 , p . 17 .                                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 18 .
Appeal brought on 18 August 1995 by Langnese-Iglo                          Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
GmbH against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the                  the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Second Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of                      on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-7/93                  Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-3 1/9 1
between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the Commission of the                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
      European Communities, supported by Mars GmbH                                                    Communities
                         ( Case C-279/95 P )                                                      ( Case C-287/95 P
                              ( 95/C 286/06 )                                                        ( 95/C 286/07 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
 by the Second Chamber, extended composition, of the                        by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court


title: Case C-327/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — United States Polo Association v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ — Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark ‘POLO-POLO’ )

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/10

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — United States Polo Association v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      (Case C-327/11 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ - Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark ‘POLO-POLO’)
      (2012/C 331/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: United States Polo Association (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-228/09 United States Polo Association v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ for goods in Classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27 against the decision R 886/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 March 2009 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division partly refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word marks ‘POLO-POLO’ for goods in Classes 24, 35 and 39 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders United States Polo Association to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 1999 in Case C-44/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht): BASF AG v Präsident des Deutschen Patentamts (Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — European patent ruled void ab initio for failure to file a translation)

text:
8.1.2000                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 6/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 21 September 1999                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 September 1999
in Case C-124/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Vaasan Hovioikeus): Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold
Microsystems Ltd, Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kih-                      in Case C-44/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
lakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä), Suomen Valtio (Finnish                        the Bundespatentgericht): BASF AG v Präsident des
                              State) (1)                                                         Deutschen Patentamts (1)
(Freedom to provide services — Exclusive operating rights                   (Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent
                         — Slot machines)                                   effect — European patent ruled void ab initio for failure to
                                                                                file a translation)
                           (2000/C 6/04)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/05)
                   (Language of the case: Finnish)                                             (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-124/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               In Case C-44/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Vaasan                          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundespatentge-
Hovioikeus for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              richt, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
before that court between Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold                     pending before that court between BASF AG and Präsident des
Microsystems Ltd, Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd and Kihlakun-               Deutschen Patentamts — on the interpretation of Articles 30
nansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä), Suomen Valtio (Finnish State) — on                 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28
the interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of               EC and 30 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
24 March 1994 in Case C-275/92 Schindler [1994] ECR                         J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J.C. Moitin-
I-1039 and of Articles 30, 36, 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty                   ho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and D.A.O. Edward,
(now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 30 EC, 46 EC and 49                  Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — the               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Court, composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Fourth                 21 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
and Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur) and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                   Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;                   does not preclude the application of provisions such as Article II(3)
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   of the Gesetz über internationale Patentübereinkommen, according to
judgment on 21 September 1999, in which it has ruled:                       which a patent granted by the European Patent Office with effect in
                                                                            a Member State which is drafted in a language other than the official
                                                                            language of that Member State is to be deemed void ab initio if the
                                                                            patent holder does not file with the patent office of the Member State
The Treaty provisions relating to freedom to provide services do not
                                                                            in question a translation of the patent specification in the official
preclude national legislation such as the Finnish legislation which
                                                                            language of that Member State within three months of the publication
grants to a single public body exclusive rights to operate slot
                                                                            in the European Patent Bulletin of the mention of the grant of the
machines, in view of the public interest objectives which justify it.
                                                                            patent.
(1) OJ No C 166 of 31.5.1997.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 137 of 2.5.1998.


title: Case T-225/16: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Ganz schön ausgeschlafen — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/36

         Order of the General Court of 28 November 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO
   (Case T-225/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Ganz schön ausgeschlafen - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law))
   (2017/C 022/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Graul, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 1234/2015-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Ganz schön ausgeschlafen as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Matratzen Concord GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case F-98/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 June 2013 — Jargeac and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for grant — Deduction of an allowance of the same type received from another source — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 June 2013 — Jargeac and Others v Commission
   (Case F-98/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Conditions for grant - Deduction of an allowance of the same type received from another source - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 252/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Bernard Jargeac and Others (Hostert, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers, and subsequently by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Civil Service — Action for annulment of the decision of the Commission to consider certain financial aid from a Member State to students in higher education to be allowances of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct that financial aid from the education allowance granted to officials who are parents of such students and annulment of the decision to seek repayment of sums unduly paid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action, in so far as submitted by Mr Finch, is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The action, in so far as submitted by Mr Jargeac, Mr Aliaga Artero, Mr Charrière, Mr Clarke, Ms Domingues, Ms Hughes, Mr Lanneluc and Mr Zein, is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.

               3.

               Mr Jargeac and the other eight officials or former officials whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 47.


Avis juridique important

|

E1995P0002

Request for an advisory opinion by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 27 November 1995 in the case of Eilert Eidesund v. Stavanger Catering A/S (Case E-2/95)

Official Journal C 149 , 23/05/1996 P. 0011 - 0011

Request for an advisory opinion by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 27 November 1995 in the case of Eilert Eidesund v. Stavanger Catering A/S (Case E-2/95) (96/C 149/08)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 27 November 1995 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating High Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 4 December 1995, for an advisory opinion in the case of Eilert Eidesund v. Stavanger Catering A/S, on the following questions:1. Does the termination of a catering contract with one company and the signing of a new catering contract with another company fall under Council Directive 77/187/EEC, when no condition is made in the contract that equipment and/or employees are also to be taken over?2. Will it make any difference to the answer to question No 1 if the new catering company takes over the employees and the stocks?3. Will it make any difference to the answer to question No 1 if the contract falls under Council Directives 77/62/EEC, 80/767/EEC and 88/295/EEC on the award of public supplies contracts?4. Do rights under Article 3 (1) and (2) also include the right to uphold insurance schemes, including pension schemes, with the new employer that the employee had with the employer who lost the contract?5. Will the answer to question No 1 be different in cases where:(a) employees of the original catering company apply for a post in the normal way and after competing are employed in the new catering company,and(b) there is an agreement between the new catering company and the old catering company, or between the principal and the new catering company, to the effect that the employees are also to be taken over?