title: Case T-723/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014  — HX v Council

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/28

         Action brought on 13 October 2014 — HX v Council
   (Case T-723/14)
   (2014/C 462/41)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Stanislav Koyev, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               hold the present action to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded;

               —

               examine the present action under the accelerated procedure;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 and Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 in so far as they add the applicant to the list in the annex to Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 in so far as they add the applicant to the list in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

               —

               order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial:

                           —

                           the applicant was not informed about the contested measures, he was not provided with any credible evidence or indication justifying his inclusion on the list of persons sanctioned, although the Council must bear the burden of proof;

                           —

                           the accusations against the applicant, that he was ‘responsible for violent repression of the civilian population in Syria’ are neither clear nor complete and are based on conjecture.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement to provide reasons:

                           —

                           the contested measures contain only unreasoned allegations;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection:

                           —

                           as a result of the unlawful reversal of the burden of proof, the defendant had the possibility of correcting its wrongful and unlawful measures;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of a range of factual errors committed by the Council.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and the freedom to conduct a business:

                           —

                           on the basis of the contested measures, the applicant is unlawfully deprived of the possibility of enjoying his property.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to a normal life because the measures imposed are not compatible with the prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading punishment or treatment in Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of the reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because the inclusion of the applicant in the contested measures unlawfully adversely affects his standing in society and with his partners.


title: Case F-67/13: Action brought on 8 July2013 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/31

         Action brought on 8 July2013 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-67/13)
   2013/C 274/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed term contract.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decisions taken by the defendant on 26 September and 7 December 2012 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it would not renew her fixed term contract which was to expire on 31 March 2013 and the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 9 April 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the difference between the amount of remuneration that she would have been entitled if she had remained in her post with the defendant and the amount of remuneration, fees, unemployment benefits or any other substituted payment which she has actually received since 1 April 2013 to replace the remuneration which she received as a temporary staff member;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-361/01 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2001 by Christina Kik against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-120/99 between Christina Kik, supported by the Hellenic Republic and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the Council of the European Union

text:
24.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 331/11
Appeal brought on 24 September 2001 by Christina Kik                          No 40/94, an application submitted in Dutch is never
against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the                         dealt with in that language and all opposition, revocation
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                         or invalidity proceedings take place in one of the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                            Office’s working languages, the appellant submits that by
T-120/99 between Christina Kik, supported by the Hellenic                     introducing those rules governing languages the Council
Republic and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     has failed to fulfil its obligation to treat all the citizens of
Market (Trade Marks and Designs), supported by the                            the Union quite equally. A distinct group of citizens of
Kingdom of Spain and the Council of the European Union                        the Union, namely, nationals of Member States the
                                                                              languages of which are not working languages of the
                        (Case C-361/01 P)                                     Office, are discriminated against in comparison with
                                                                              nationals of the other Member States because they
                         (2001/C 331/17)                                      cannot follow proceedings before the Office in their own
                                                                              language, which causes them to incur considerably higher
                                                                              costs and entails a greater risk of inaccuracy.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by                   In exercising their profession, trade mark agents of the
the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                     Member States whose language is not one of the working
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-120/99                   languages of the Office are placed in a situation substan-
between Christina Kik, supported by the Hellenic Republic,                    tially unfavourable to competition. It will always be
and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                cheaper, and therefore more attractive, for an applicant
Marks and Designs), supported by the Kingdom of Spain and                     for a Community trade mark to be assisted by a trade
the Council of the European Union was brought before the                      mark agent whose mother tongue belongs to the Office’s
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Septem-                    working languages. Consequently, the rules governing
ber 2001 by Ms Kik, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijck                    languages leads to significant distortion of competition
and S.B. Noë, lawyers, the other parties to the proceedings                   on the Community market.
being the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs, ‘OHIM’), represented by O. Montalto                 To the applicant’s mind, breach of the prohibition of
and J. Miranda de Sousa, acting as Agents, and J. Bourgeois,                  discrimination cannot be justified by considerations of
Lawyer, the Hellenic Republic, represented by K. Samoni-                      practical expediency, given the fundamental nature of the
Randou and S. Vodina, acting as Agents, the Kingdom of                        principle of equal treatment.
Spain, represented by S. Ortiz Vaamonde, acting as Agent, and                 Even if practical and financial considerations could justify
the Council of the European Union, represented by G. Houttin                  derogation from the principle of equal treatment, the fact
and A. Lo Monaco, acting as Agents.                                           would remain that the rules governing languages laid
                                                                              down in Regulation (EC) No 40/94 are not proportional.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   The Council could have designated one official language
                                                                              for all proceedings before the Office, for example English.
—     set aside the contested judgment (1) of the Court of First              That would have had a considerably less discriminatory
      Instance,                                                               effect and distorted the market considerably less than the
                                                                              rules governing languages in question. In the appellant’s
—     annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office                 opinion, there is no reasonable justification for less
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 19 March                    favourable treatment of, for example, Dutch, which is
      1999,                                                                   spoken by more than 20 million citizens of the Union, in
                                                                              relation to Spanish or Italian.
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      to pay the costs, including the costs incurred before the               Finally, the fact that the Council adopted Regulation (EC)
      Court of First Instance.                                                No 40/94 unanimously cannot constitute a factor of
                                                                              any consequence. The ‘rule of law’ implies that the
                                                                              Community legislature is also subject to the law.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               In the alternative: at the very least, the second sentence of
                                                                              subparagraph 4 is unlawful. This sentence is also contrary
—     Misinterpretation of Article 115 of Regulation (EC)                     to the principle which forms the basis of subparagraph 1
      No 40/94 (2), the Court of First Instance erred in its                  and of the first sentence of subparagraph 4 namely, that
      understanding that those rules mean that all applications               the language used for filing the application is to be the
      are to be dealt with in one of the working languages of                 language of the proceedings. The second sentence of
      the Office.                                                             subparagraph 4, as is clear from the settled practice of
                                                                              the Office, deprives that principle of all meaning. The
—     Breach of the law, in particular Article 6 EC: just as, in
                                                                              various provisions of Article 115 are, consequently,
      accordance with this provision of the Treaty, the Member
      States are obliged, in the field of language, to treat their            mutually inconsistent.
      own nationals and those of other Member States quite
      equally in situations governed by Community law, so,              (1) Not yet published.
      according to the appellant, Article 6 a fortiori requires         (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark
      the Community legislature to treat all citizens of the                (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 11).
      Union quite equally. Since, under the rules governing
      languages introduced by Article 115 of Regulation (EC)


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2004 in Case T- 213/02: SNF SA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Directive 2002/34/EC — Restrictions on the use of polyacrylamides in the composition of cosmetic products — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 6 September 2004
   in Case T- 213/02: SNF SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2002/34/EC - Restrictions on the use of polyacrylamides in the composition of cosmetic products - Person individually concerned - Admissibility)
   (2005/C 31/42)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-213/02: SNF SA, established in Saint-Étienne (France), represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Agent: X. Lewis, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for the partial annulment of Twenty-sixth Commission Directive 2002/34/EC of 15 April 2002 adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III and VII to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 2002 L 102, p. 19) in so far as it restricts the use of polyacrylamides in the composition of cosmetic products – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant is to bear its own costs and those of the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.


20150731010616622015/C 270/212612015CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150601171711Case C-261/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1710120150601EN0021171171Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey
   (Case C-261/15)2015/C 270/21Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Vredegerecht te Ieper

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV

      Defendant: Gregory Demey

      Question referred

   Does Article 6(2), in fine, of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 (
         1
      ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations preclude the Belgian national penalty provisions, …, under which a train passenger without a ticket — and in the absence of regularisation within the periods laid down in the relevant regulations — commits a criminal offence, which excludes any contractual relationship between the transport company and the train passenger, with the consequence that the benefit of the legal protection provisions under European and Belgian national law which are based on that (exclusive) contractual relationship with that consumer, …, is also denied to the train passenger?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14.


title: Case C-18/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 January 2013 — ‘Maks Pen’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i izpalnenie na proizvodstvoto’ pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia po Prihodite — gr. Sofia

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 January 2013 — ‘Maks Pen’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i izpalnenie na proizvodstvoto’ pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia po Prihodite — gr. Sofia
   (Case C-18/13)
   2013/C 79/17
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Maks Pen’ EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia „Obzhalvane i izpalnenie na proizvodstvoto“

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are circumstances of fact in which the service provider named on the invoice or its subcontractor do not have the personnel, equipment or assets that would be required to provide the service, the costs of actually providing the service are not documented and no such costs are entered in its accounts, and documents submitted as evidence of the reciprocal performance owed and of provision of the service in respect of which a VAT invoice was issued and the right to deduct input tax was exercised, in the form of a contract and a record of acceptance and delivery, were false in so far as concerns the status as issuer of the persons which signed them in the name of the service provider, to be treated as relating to ‘tax evasion’ for the purposes of the right of deduction under European Union law?

               2.

               Does it follow from the obligation incumbent on a court under European Union law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to refuse the right to deduct input tax in the case of tax evasion that a national court also has a duty to establish the existence of tax evasion of its own motion, on the basis of the facts of the main proceedings, to the extent that, taking into account its obligation under national law to give a ruling on the substance of the dispute, to comply with the prohibition on less favourable treatment of the claimant, to observe the principles of the right to an effective legal remedy and legal certainty and to apply the relevant legal provisions of its own motion, it must assess new arguments of fact put before it for the first time, as well as all evidence, including that relating to fictitious transactions, false documents and documents the contents of which are inaccurate?

               3.

               In the context of the obligation of the court to refuse the right to deduct input tax in the event of tax evasion, does it follow from point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax that the service must actually have been provided by the service provider named on the invoice or its subcontractor in order for the right of deduction to be exercised?

               4.

               Does the requirement under Article 242 of Directive 2006/112 to keep detailed accounts for the purposes of verification of the right to deduct input tax mean that the corresponding national accounting legislation of the Member State in question, which provides for consistency with the international accounting standards applicable under European Union law, must also be observed, or does it refer only to the requirement to keep the VAT accounting documents prescribed in that directive: invoices, VAT returns and recapitulative statements?
               In the event that the second alternative is correct, an answer to the following question will also be required:
               Does it follow from the requirement in point (6) of the first paragraph of Article 226(6) of Directive 2006/112 that invoices must state the ‘extent and nature of the services rendered’ that, in the case of services, invoices or a document issued in connection with them must contain details of the actual provision of the service, that is to say objective, verifiable facts that serve as proof both that the service was in fact provided and that it was rendered by the service provider named on the invoice?

               5.

               Is Article 242 of Directive 2006/112, which lays down the requirement to keep detailed accounts for the purposes of verifying the right to deduct input tax, in conjunction with Article 63 and Article 273 of that directive, to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision under which a service is deemed to have been provided at the time when the conditions governing recognition of the revenue from that service are satisfied in accordance with the relevant accounting legislation, which provides for consistency with the international accounting standards applicable under European Union law and the principles of accounting evidence for business transactions, the precedence of substance over form and the comparability of revenue and costs?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-102/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Scope ratione materiae — Recovery of sum not due — Unjust enrichment — Debt arising from the unjustified repayment of a fine for infringement of competition law)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich
   (Case C-102/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Scope ratione materiae - Recovery of sum not due - Unjust enrichment - Debt arising from the unjustified repayment of a fine for infringement of competition law))
   (2016/C 350/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

      Defendant: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

      Operative part of the judgment

   An action for recovery of sums not due on the ground of unjust enrichment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has its origin in the repayment of a fine imposed in competition law proceedings does not fall within ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case C-456/00: Action brought on 18 December 2000 by French Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                        (Case C-452/00)                                 —     annul the Commission Decision C(2000) 2754 final of
                                                                              20 September 2000 on State aid put into effect by France
                                                                              in the wine sector;
                         (2001/C 45/23)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Communities on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by J. van Bakel, of the European Law
Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 (1)
      of 29 September 2000 providing for the continued
      application of safeguard measures for imports from the
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;                                 —     The Commission was wrong to base itself, in the contest-
                                                                              ed       decision,     on      Commission        Regulation
                                                                              No 1493/2000 (1). The aid was notified in February
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
                                                                              1999 under Regulation No 822/87 (2). Although the
      ings.
                                                                              Commission decision was adopted in September 2000
                                                                              under the new Regulation No 1493/1999 (3), which
                                                                              entered into force on 21 July 1999, it was Regulation No
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               822/87 which was binding on the Member States until
                                                                              August 2000, that is to say during nearly the whole of
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                   the period when the Commission investigated the aid.
Case C-180/00 (2). Article 109(2) of the OCT decision has also
been infringed inasmuch as the safeguard measures adopted
are not appropriate for removing the difficulties which the
Commission considers to be present.                                     —     (In the alternative) Incompatibility of the contested
                                                                              decision with Regulation No 1493/2000
(1) OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.09.2000, p. 64.
(2) OJ 2000 C 211 of 22.07.2000, p. 10.
                                                                              —     The Commission is wrong to find the French
                                                                                aid incompatible on the ground that it does not
                                                                                sufficiently reduce yields of the Ugni-blanc grape
                                                                                variety. Contrary to what the Commission main-
                                                                                tains, Regulation No 1493/1999 does not establish
                                                                                a correlation between the conversion of land and
                                                                                any obligation on the Member States to reduce yield
                                                                                — and thus production — on non-converted land.
Action brought on 18 December 2000 by French Republic
    against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-456/00)                                       —     Error in law: by requiring an ‘assurance that restruc-
                                                                                turing of 1 000 hectares would be accompanied by
                                                                                grubbing-up of an equivalent area’, the Commission
                         (2001/C 45/24)
                                                                                adds a condition to the conversion of vineyards
                                                                                provided for in Article 11 of Regulation
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                           No 1493/1999, whereas there is nothing in that
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Article to say that conversion of a given area must
Communities on 18 December 2000 by the French Republic,                             be accompanied by the grubbing-up of an equivalent
represented by G. de Bergues, head of sub-directorate at the                        area. Limitation of the right to replant on converted
Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and                   surfaces provided for by Commission Regulation
by L. Bernheim, secretary for foreign affairs at the same                           No 1227/2000 (4), and in particular Article 13
ministry, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                          thereof, cannot be treated like the grubbing up of
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II.                           non-converted land.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/13
       —     The Commission is wrong to accuse the French                             by the Walloon Region, to Hermann Heye consti-
             authorities of not having taken account of the                           tuted aid by virtue of the fact that the Walloon
             capacity of the market to absorb new quantities of                       Region had made a capital contribution in favour of
             regional wines produced following the planned                            Verlipack Holding II, the Commission misinterpret-
             varietal conversion.                                                     ed the concept of State aid and prejudged the
                                                                                substance of the file, in breach of Articles 87 and
                                                                                295 EC. The SRIW acted in accordance with the
                                                                                criterion of the private investor. Following the
                                                                                example of the private partners (the Beaulieu Group
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1493/2000 of 10 July 2000
                                                                                and the banks of the Verlipack Group), the SRIW,
    establishing the standard import values for determining the entry
    price of certain fruit and vegetables OJ 2000 L 170, p. 1.                        like the Walloon Region in the grant of its capital
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the                        contribution, behaved like a private investor in the
    common organization of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1).                   procedure for examining the file and bearing in
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the                        mind information supplied by the Heye Group
    common organisation of the market in wine OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.                    which had all the appearances of credibility for
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000                            the future of the Verlipack Group. The fact that
    laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regu-                   insolvency occurred 22 months after the public
    lation (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2000 L 143, p. 1).                                   interventions were made cannot demonstrate a
                                                                                posteriori that, in March 1997, the SRIW, like the
                                                                                Walloon Region, did not act as a private investor.
                                                                                The Heye Group is the actual debtor of the funds
                                                                                lent by the SRIW. The use made by the Heye Group
                                                                                of the funds placed at its disposal by the SRIW under
                                                                                normal market conditions cannot be made subject
                                                                                to examination by the Commission pursuant to the
                                                                                State aid rules, and, a fortiori, cannot be classified as
                                                                                aid on the ground that those funds were initially of
                                                                                public origin and their final beneficiary did not
Action brought on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom                                     remain the Heye Group.
of Belgium against the Commission of the European
                              Communities                                       —     By taking the view that the whole of the compulsory
                                                                                loan of 27 March 1997 of the Heye Group consti-
                            (Case C-457/00)                                           tuted aid, the Commission misinterpreted the con-
                                                                                cept of aid. The clause for abandoning the debt
                                                                                presented a less significant risk than the Commission
                             (2001/C 45/25)                                           might think, since, despite the insolvency of the
                                                                                three operating companies which occurred in Janua-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                             ry 1999, that clause cannot prevent the repayment
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          of the amount of the SRIW’s loan by reason of the
                                                                                early rescission of that agreement invoked by the
Communities on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
Belgium, represented by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, and by                            SRIW before the conditions of the contested aban-
                                                                                donment clause were met.
J.M. De Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                —     Concerning the loan of 28 March 1997, the Com-
                                                                                mission contented itself with applying its reference
The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:                                  rate automatically without carrying out an examin-
                                                                                ation of the particular circumstances of the case,
—     annul the Commission decision of 20 September 2000,                             although the Belgian authorities were asking it to do
       No C 40/99, entitled ‘State Aid in favour of Verlipack —                       so. By so doing, the Commission declined to exercise
       Belgium’;                                                                      the discretion conferred upon it by Article 87 EC.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   —     In its examination of the capital contribution to
                                                                                Verlipack Holding II, the Commission generalised
                                                                                from interventions of a completely different legal
                                                                                character, since it took into consideration the two
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                       loans granted by the SRIW to Hermann Heye as if
                                                                                they had been direct capital contributions in favour
—      Infringement of Articles 87 and 295 EC                                         of Verlipack Holding II.
                                                                           —    Infringement of the duty to state reasons.
       —     By assuming that the loan of 28 March 1997 and
             the compulsory loan of 27 March 1997 granted by
             the Société Régionale d’Investissement de Wallonie
             (‘SRIW’), a limited liability company wholly owned


title: Case C-331/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Martina Sciotto v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Martina Sciotto v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma
   (Case C-331/17)
   (2017/C 309/32)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Martina Sciotto

      Respondent: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

      Question referred

   Are the national rules (in particular under Article 3(6) of Decree-Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 100 of 29 June 2010, in so far as they determine that ‘the provisions of Article 1(01) and (2) of Legislative Decree No 368 of 6 September 2008 shall not apply to the operatic and orchestral foundations’) incompatible with Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which appears in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-319/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Grasso v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/35

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Grasso v Commission
   (Case T-319/08)
   (2008/C 272/67)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Salvatore Grasso (Catania, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case T-115/08: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2010 — Gourmet Burger Kitchen v OHIM (GOURMET BURGER KITCHEN)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/54

         Order of the General Court of 29 June 2010 — Gourmet Burger Kitchen v OHIM (GOURMET BURGER KITCHEN)
   (Case T-115/08) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 234/95
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-392/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/19/EC — Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-392/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/19/EC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2008/C 158/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 2005 L 58, p. 19)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-116/16: Order of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Corporate tax — Aid in favour of Belgian ports granted by Belgium — Commission letter proposing the adoption of appropriate measures — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/35

         Order of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission
   (Case T-116/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Corporate tax - Aid in favour of Belgian ports granted by Belgium - Commission letter proposing the adoption of appropriate measures - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 014/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgiun), Port autonome de Charleroi (Charleroi, Belgium), Port autonome de Liège (Liège, Belgium), Région wallonne (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU, requesting annulment of the alleged decision concerning State aid SA.38393 (2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium, annexed to the Commission’s letter of 22 January 2016 seeking to propose appropriate measures to the Kingdom of Belgium.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL, the Port autonome de Namur, the Port autonome de Charleroi, the Port autonome de Liège and the Région wallonne shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-59/10: Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/57

         Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT)
   (Case T-59/10)
   2010/C 100/84
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Geemarc Telecom International Ltd (Wanchai, Hong Kong) (represented by: G. Farrington, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Audioline GmbH (Neuss, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 November 2009 in case R 913/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘AMPLIDECT’ for goods in classes 9 and 16

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal and, as a result, cancelled the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) failed to take into account that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal had failed to adduce evidence of lack of distinctive character of the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity; and (ii) failed to take into account that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity has acquired an enhanced distinctiveness through the level of use made of it; the Board of Appeal failed to restrict itself to an examination of the evidence and arguments provided by the parties within the time line set by the Board of Appeal.


title: Case T-667/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015  — Veloss International and Attimedia v Parliament (Public service contracts — Supply of Greek translation services for the Parliament — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Veloss International and Attimedia v Parliament
   (Case T-667/11) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Supply of Greek translation services for the Parliament - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability))
   (2015/C 065/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Veloss International (Brussels, Belgium) and Attimedia SA (Brussels) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, L. Darie and P. Biström, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament to select, in second place, the tender submitted by the applicants in response to the call for tenders No EL/2011/EU ‘Translation into Greek’ (OJ 2011, S 56-090374), communicated to the applicants by letter of 18 October 2011, and all related decisions taken by the Parliament, and second, for damages for the loss allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 18 October 2011 to select, in second position, the tender submitted by Veloss International SA and Attimedia SA in call for tenders EL/2011/EU for the provision of Greek translation services;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case F-108/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2014 — Loescher v Council

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/69

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2014 — Loescher v Council
      (Case F-108/13) (1)

      (2014/C 395/85)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the 3rd Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 24, 25/1/2014, p. 41.


title: Case C-257/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali
   (Case C-257/12)
   2012/C 217/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sky Italia Srl

      Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20 EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included?

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).


title: Case T-424/04: Action brought on 15 October 2004 by Angel Angelidis against European Parliament

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/25

         Action brought on 15 October 2004 by Angel Angelidis against European Parliament
   (Case T-424/04)
   (2004/C 314/59)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 October 2004 by Angel Angelidis, residing in Luxembourg, represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Parliament's decision of 16 July 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant;

               —

               Annul the applicant's staff report for 2002;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the applicant compensation for non-material harm, evaluated on an equitable basis at EUR 20,000, owing to the various substantial faults committed at various levels in the establishment of his staff reports and owing to the significant delay in definitively establishing those reports;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law on which the applicant relies are identical to those in Case T-416/03, (1) brought by the same applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004, p. 25.


title: Appeal brought on 28 November 1996 by Société Louis Dreyfus & Cie against the judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-485/93 between Société Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-386/96 P)

text:
No C 40/ 10           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 2 . 97
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November               1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings           27 November 1996 , for preliminary rulings in the cases of
before that court in the case of Ministère Public against             August de Vriendt ( C-377/96 ), Rene Van Looveren (C
B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage Sari on the following                378/96 ), Julien Grare ( C-379/96 ), Karel Boeykens ( C-380/
questions :                                                           96 ), Frans Serneels ( C-381 /96 ), Fredy Parotte ( C-382/96 ),
                                                                      Camille Delbrouck ( C-383/96 ) and Henri Props ( C-384/
A. Must Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty be interpreted               96 ) v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ( National Office for
    as meaning that they preclude a Member State from                 Pensions ) on the following questions:
    requiring an undertaking established in another
    Member State and temporarily carrying out work in                 1 . Is Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (') of
    the first State :
                                                                           19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                           it  leaves   the   Member          States free to determine
    1 . to appoint an agent or servant responsible for                     differently for men and women the age at which they
          keeping the individual accounts of employees who                 are respectively deemed to have become unfit for work
          provide services there ;                                         by reason of old age, for the purpose of acquiring
                                                                           entitlement to a retirement pension for salaried
    2 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to
                                                                           employees and, thus, to calculate those pensions
          the legislation of that State relating to the keeping
          of social documents;
                                                                           differently, in the manner indicated in this judgment ?
    3 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to             2 . Is that Article to be interpreted as precluding men and
          the legislation of that State relating to social                 women deemed to have become unfit for work by
          inspections;                                                     reason of old age as from the age of 65 and 60
                                                                           respectively who, as from that age , also lose their
    4 . to draw up an individual account for each worker;                  rights to social security benefit, such as unemployment
                                                                           benefit, from claiming an unconditional right to a
    5 . to keep a special staff register;                                  pension as from the age of 60 years, the amount of the
                                                                           pension being calculated differently, according to
    6 . to draw up working regulations;                                    whether the claimant is a man or a woman ?
    7 . to keep social documents ( staff register and
          individual account ) at the Belgian residence of a          3 . Should the expression ' pensionable age ' in Article 7 of
          natural person who is to keep those documents in                  Council Directive 79/7/ EEC of 19 December 1978 be
          his capacity as agent or servant;                                construed as meaning the age which gives rise to
                                                                           entitlement to a pension, or is it the age at which the
     8 . to issue an individual record for each worker,                     employee is deemed to have become unfit for work by
                                                                            reason of old age, in accordance with national criteria,
     where that undertaking is already subject to                           and enjoys the benefit of a replacement income
     requirements which, while not identical , are at least                 excluding other social security benefits of the same
     comparable on account of their aim in respect of the                   description ?
     same workers and for the same period of activity in
     the State where it is established ?
                                                                            Can that expression be interpreted as covering both of
                                                                            the above definitions ?
B. Can Articles 59 and 60 render inoperative the first
     paragraph of Article 3 of the Civil Code on Belgian               D OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
     public order legislation ?
 References for preliminary rulings by the Hof van                     Appeal brought on 28 November 1996 by Societe Louis
 Cassatie, Belgium, by judgments of that court of                      Dreyfus & Cie against the judgment delivered on
 4 November 1996 in the cases of August De Vriendt, Rene               24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
 Van Looveren, Julien Grare, Karel Boeykens, Frans                     First Instance of the European Communities in Case
 Serneels, Fredy Parotte, Camille Delbrouck and Henri                  T-485/93 between Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the
 Props v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (National Office for                       Commission of the European Communities
                              Pensions )                                                       ( Case C-386/96 P)
      ( Cases C-377/96, C-378/96, C-379/96, C-380/96,                                              ( 97/C 40/21 )
         C-381/96, C-382/96, C-383/96 and C-384/96 )
                           ( 97/C 40/20 )
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                        1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                of the European Communities in Case T-485/93 between
 European Communities by judgments of the Hof van                      Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the Commission of the
 Cassatie ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 4 November               European Communities was brought before the Court of
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97            ! EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 40/ 11
Justice of the European Communities on 28 November                     with regard to the validity, interpretation or application of
1996 by Dreyfus & Cie, represented by R. Saint-Esteben,                the present contract', which , according to Article 14
with an address for service in Euxembourg at the                       thereof, ' shall be governed by French law '.
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue.
                                                                       (') Two buildings on Orsay, rented for multiple residential
The appellant claims that the Court should set aside in                    occupation , comprising 15 four-room units of 80 m2, each
part the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                        fitted with a Glasoltherm thermoelectric micro-heating plant
24 September 1996 in so far as it declared inadmissible                    enabling tests to be carried out on two Glasoltherm heat
the action for annulment brought by Louis Dreyfus                          pump designs which have functioned for 10 years in rhe
                                                                           context of a Z.A.I , demonstration lease in Courtaboeuf les
against the decision of the Commission of 1 April 1993 .                   LJlis .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
      the EC Treaty: the judgment is too restrictive
      inasmuch as it considers that, in the absence of a legal         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
      relationship with the Commission , Louis Dreyfus                 Eerste Aanleg te Brussel by judgment of that court of
      cannot be directly concerned, since neither the validity         26 November 1996 in the case of Lease Plan Luxembourg
      nor the terms of the contract are affected . The legal                                  SA v. Belgian State
      and substantive situation of the applicant was in fact
                                                                                ( Case C-390/96 )
      directly affected by the contested decision : the contract
      was already concluded between Louis Dreyfus and                                             ( 97/C 40/23 )
      Exportkhleb and payment of the price was to be by
      means of the Community loan . It was because of the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      contract and its terms ( and not because of a ' decision '       European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
      taken by the Russians ) that Louis Dreyfus could no              van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel ( Court of First Instance ,
      longer be paid at the new price, since the contract and          Brussels ) of 26 November 1996 , which was received at the
      the rider inextricably linked payment to the                     Court Registry on 2 December 1996 , for a preliminary
       Community loan .                                                ruling in the case of Lease Plan Luxembourg SA v. Belgian
                                                                       State on the following questions :
— Contradictory grounds .
                                                                       1 . Must the term ' fixed establishment' in Article 9 ( 1 ) of
                                                                            the Sixth VAT Directive ( Directive 77/388/EEC ) (') be
                                                                            interpreted as meaning that an undertaking from one
                                                                            Member State which hires or leases out a number of
                                                                            cars to customers established in another Member State
Action brought on 22 November 1996 by Glasoltherm                           has ipso facto, by virtue of that hiring, a fixed
Sari against the Commission of the European                                 establishment in that other Member State ?
                            Communities
                         ( Case C-388/96 )                             2 . If the answer to the preceding question is in the
                                                                            affirmative : must Article 9 ( 1 ) of the Sixth VAT
                            ( 97/C 40/22 )                                  Directive be interpreted as meaning that services
                                                                            consisting in the leasing out of vehicles can be
An action against the Commission of the European                            regarded as being supplied from a fixed establishment
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      in Belgium in the case where the supplier of the
the European Communities on 22 November 1996 by                             services has its established place of business in
Glasoltherm Sari, represented by Mr Penciolelli , lawyer, of                Luxembourg and where almost all contracts are
18 Avenue de la Liberation , 91130 Ris Orangis ( France ).                  negotiated and concluded from this place of
                                                                            establishment in Luxembourg with customers
Glasoltherm Sari claims that the Court should order the                     established in Luxembourg and only a limited number
Commission of the European Communities to support by                        of vehicles ( approximately ten cars out of a fleet of
all means, including the provision of financial assistance,                 almost 1 000 vehicles ) are purchased in Belgium and
over a period of 10 years from the date of entry into                       maintained or repaired within Belgium ?
industrial service of the two demonstration operations
referred to ('), the action taken by a commercial company              3 . Must Articles 6 and 59 of the EEC Treaty be
formed by Glasoltherm Sari to market Glasoltherm                             interpreted as meaning that foreign taxable persons,
thermoelectric micro-heating technology in the European                     who receive goods or services in Belgium and
Community.                                                                   subseqently request VAT refunds in respect of such
                                                                            goods or services pursuant to the Eighth VAT
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          Directive , cannot, in the event of late reimbursement,
                                                                             be granted a lower rate of interest, which , moreover,
The      action  is  founded     on  contract  No    EE   252/ 84            begins to accrue only from the moment at which such
concluded between the parties on 28 October 1986 .                           foreign taxable persons institute default proceedings
According to Article 13 of that contract, 'the contracting                   against the Belgian State, whereas in the event of late
parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of                  reimbursement to Belgian taxable persons, the latter
Justice of the European Communities all disputes arising                     are granted a higher rate of interest which ,


title: Action brought on 9 February 1995 by Sergio Del Plato against the order of inadmissibility made on 7 December 1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-242/94 between Sergio Del Plato and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-31/95 P)

text:
8 . 4 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 87/5
Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen ( Court of First Instance,                      Court of First Instance on 27 June 1994 inadmissible,
Antwerp) of 31 January 1995 , which was received at the                    and    order  that     the  substance   of  the   case  be
Court Registry on 8 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling              considered;
in the case of ( 1 ) E. Pastoors and (2 ) Trans-Cap GmbH v.
Belgian State on the following question:                              2. grant the form of order sought at first instance, as set out
                                                                           in the application lodged at the Registry of the Court of
Should the prohibition on discrimination contained in                      First Instance on 27 June 1994 and supplemented by a
Article 6 of the EC Treaty or the general principle of equality            statement lodged on 8 September 1994, and hereby
enshrined in Community law be interpreted as precluding                    resubmitted in its entirety, and order the Commission to
the national legislation of a Member State, adopted in                     pay the whole of the costs.
implementation of Council Regulations ( EEC ) No 3820/85
and ( EEC ) No 3821/85 , from providing for a system of               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
sanctions whereby natural or legal persons charged with
infringements of that legislation are given the choice                — A defect which vitiates the procedure constitutes an
between:                                                                  objective and significant ground for judicial review with
                                                                          respect also to other candidates in the same legal
(a ) immediate payment of a given sum, in this case Bfrs                  position. The procedural defect may be transferable and
       10 000 per infringement, whereupon the prosecution is              apply also in the case of the present applicant for the
       as a rule discontinued;                                            purposes of reopening the proceedings. Whether that
                                                                          assumption is well founded may be definitively
       or                                                                 established only through an examination of the
                                                                          substance of the case, the exclusion of which on the basis
( b ) the continuation against them of the normal criminal                of a procedural objection which is open to challenge can
       proceedings; subject to the proviso, however, that, in             only lead to a denial of jurisdiction, to the serious
       the event of the second of those options being chosen, it          detriment of the applicant's position in so far as concerns
       is only defendants having no place of residence or fixed           the rights of the defence.
       abode in Belgium who are obliged, whether or not they
       are nationals of another Member State, to lodge a sum          — The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in
       — in this case Bfrs 15 000 — by way of deposit in                  support are identical to those in Case T-242/94 (*).
       respect of each offence with which they are charged, to
       cover any fines or legal costs which they may be ordered       (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994, p. 26 .
       to pay, and subject to the impounding of the vehicle
       driven by the accused until such time as the deposit is
       lodged ?
                                                                      Appeal brought on 10 February 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the judgment delivered
                                                                      on 6 December 1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Action brought on 9 February 1995 by Sergio Del Plato                 T-450/93 between Lisrestal — Organizagao e Gestao de
against the order of inadmissibility made on 7 December               Restaurantes Colectivos Lda, GTI — Gabinete Tecnico de
1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of           Informatica Lda, Lisnico — Servigo Maritimo Internacional
the European Communities in Case T-242/94 between                     Lda, Rebocalis — Rebocagem e Assistencia Maritima Lda
Sergio Del Plato and the Commission of the European                   and Gaslimpo — Sociedade de Desgasificagao de Navios SA
                           Communities
                                                                          and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-31/95 P)                                                    (Case C-32/95 P)
                           ( 95/C 87/09 )                                                        ( 95/C 87/10 )
An appeal against the order made on 7 December 1994 by                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 December
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
European Communities in Case T-242/94 between Sergio                  the European Communities in Case T-450/93 between
Del Plato and the Commission of the European                          Lisrestal — Organiza^ao e Gestao de Restaurantes
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the            Colectivos Lda, GTI — Gabinete Tecnico de Informatica
European Communities on 9 February 1995 by Sergio Del                 Lda, Lisnico — Servi^o Maritimo Internacional Lda,
Plato, represented by Luigi Bonomi, with an address for               Rebocalis — Rebocagem e Assistencia Maritima Lda and
service in Varese, at the latter's Chambers at 6 Via                  Gaslimpo — Sociedade de Desgasifica§ao de Navios SA and
Orrigoni.                                                             the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                      before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           10 February 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
1 . annul the order of the Court of First Instance of                 Nicholas Khan, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with
      7 December 1994 in Case T-242/94, notified to the               an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
      appellant on 12 December 1994, declaring the action             Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
      brought by application lodged at the Registry of the            Kirchberg.


title: Case C-382/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social n° 1, Pontevedra, by order of that court of 28 September 2000 in the case of María Gardenia Abal Pombo against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

text:
9.12.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/15
4.    Is the importer therefor entitled under the Customs Code,         Does Community law, in particular Council Directive
      and in particular Article 236 thereof, to a refund of the         92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 (1), preclude national legis-
      duty paid on the buying commission?                               lation which provides that a life-assurance proposal or, in the
                                                                        absence of a proposal, a life-assurance policy must inform a
                                                                        policy-holder that termination, reduction or redemption of an
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                        existing life-assurance contract for the purpose of subscribing
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
    19.10.1992, p. 1).                                                  to a separate life-assurance contract will generally be detrimen-
                                                                        tal to that policy-holder?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the
Social no 1, Pontevedra, by order of that court of                          coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
28 September 2000 in the case of Marı́a Gardenia Abal                       relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
Pombo against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social                     79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ
        and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social                       1992 L 360, p. 1).
                         (Case C-382/00)
                        (2000/C 355/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social               Action brought on 23 October 2000 by the European
(Social Court) no 1, Pontevedra, Spain, of 28 September 2000,              Parliament against the Council of the European Union
received at the Court Registry on 18 October 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Gardenia Abal Pombo
against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (National                                      (Case C-387/00)
Social Security Institute) and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad
Social (General Social Security Fund) on the following question:
                                                                                (2000/C 355/31)
Where, in order for a worker (male or female) who is part of a
family in which other family members are working to be
insured under a special social security scheme for agricultural         An action against the Council of the European Union was
workers, a rule imposes a requirement that the income earned            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
from the activity to which the scheme applies must be the               ties on 23 October 2000 by the European Parliament,
family’s main income, in the sense of being the highest income,         represented by Ricardo Passos, Head of Division, and Antonio
is the rule contrary to the provisions of Council Directive             Caiola, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978(1)?                                        for service in Luxembourg at the Post and Registration
                                                                        Department, Bâtiment Tour — Office 017.
(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24.
                                                                        The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                        —     Council Decision 2000/527/EC of 14 August 2000
de Bruxelles (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 17 October                              amending Decision 93/731/EC on public access to
2000 in the case of Axa Royale Belge v Georges Ochoa                                Council documents and Council Decision
                   and Stratégie Finance Sprl                                       2000/23/EC on the improvement of information on
                                                                                the Council’s legislative activities and the public
                         (Case C-386/00)                                            register of Council documents(1);
                        (2000/C 355/30)                                       —     Decision 2000/C239/01 of the Secretary-General of
                                                                                the Council/High Representative for the Common
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Foreign and Security Policy of 27 July 2000 on
European Communities by judgment of 17 October 2000 by                              measures for the protection of classified information
the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal)                            applicable to the General Secretariat of the
(Ninth Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on                        Council(2), and
23 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Axa
Royale Belge v Georges Ochoa and Stratégie Finance Sprl on
the following question:                                                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-313/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/12

         Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-313/09)
   2009/C 256/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1) (as amended by Commission Directive 2008/53/EC of 30 April 2008 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards Spring viraemia of carp (SVC) (2)) or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 1 May 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 328, p. 14.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 117, p. 27.


title: Case T-242/11: Action brought on 9 May 2011 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/27

         Action brought on 9 May 2011 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam)
   (Case T-242/11)
   2011/C 211/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH (Biberach an der Riß, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2011 in case R 2361/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in words ‘3D eXam’ for goods in class 10

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the protection of the international registration to the European Union pursuant to Article 7(1)(b), (c) and Article 2 CTMR

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and the failure to take into account prior national registrations/grants of protection, as the International registration at issue: (i) is not purely descriptive, and; (ii) exhibits distinctiveness as the relevant public will consider the sign ‘3D eXam’ as an indication of trade origin.


title: Case C-562/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Comparative advertising — Directive 2006/114/EC — Article 4 — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 7 — Objective price comparison — Misleading omission — Advertising comparing the prices of goods sold in shops having different sizes or formats — Permissibility — Material information — Degree of communication of information and the medium for communication of that information)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/19

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU
   (Case C-562/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Comparative advertising - Directive 2006/114/EC - Article 4 - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 7 - Objective price comparison - Misleading omission - Advertising comparing the prices of goods sold in shops having different sizes or formats - Permissibility - Material information - Degree of communication of information and the medium for communication of that information))
   (2017/C 104/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS

      Respondent: ITM Alimentaire International SASU

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) to (3) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that advertising, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which compares the prices of products sold in shops having different sizes or formats, where those shops are part of retail chains each of which includes a range of shops having different sizes or formats and where the advertiser compares the prices charged in shops having larger sizes or formats in its retail chain with those displayed in shops having smaller sizes or formats in the retail chains of competitors, is liable to be unlawful, within the meaning of Article 4(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/114, unless consumers are informed clearly and in the advertisement itself that the comparison was made between the prices charged in shops in the advertiser’s retail chain having larger sizes or formats and those indicated in the shops of competing retail chains having smaller sizes or formats.
   It is for the referring court, in order to assess the lawfulness of such advertising, to ascertain whether, in the case in the main proceedings, in the light of the circumstances of the present case, the advertising at issue satisfies the objective comparison requirement and/or is misleading, first, by taking into consideration the average consumer of the products in question who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect and, secondly, by taking into account the information contained in that advertising, in particular the information concerning the shops in the advertiser’s retail chain and those in the retail chains of competitors whose prices have been compared and, more generally, all of the elements in that advertising.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-564/08 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2008 by SGL Carbon AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2008 in Case T-68/04 SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/21

         Appeal brought on 18 December 2008 by SGL Carbon AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2008 in Case T-68/04 SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-564/08 P)
   (2009/C 69/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: SGL Carbon AG (represented by: M. Klusmann and K. Beckmann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 in Case T-68/04 SGL Carbon AG v Commission;

               —

               reduce, as appropriate, the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested Commission decision of 3 December 2003;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh decision;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   The subject-matter of this appeal is the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which dismissed the appellant's action against Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a cartel on the market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products.
   The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal, alleging that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law and made a procedural error.
   By its first ground of appeal the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to have regard to its submission at first instance that turnover which was internal to the group of affiliated companies had wrongly been included in the market volumes used to establish the amounts on which the fine was based. It also submits that the substantively excessive nature of the amount on which the fine established in respect of the appellant was based is an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of proportionality as well as an infringement of Article 253 EC.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance made an error of assessment, and exceeded the scope of its discretion, in establishing the amount on which the appellant's fine was based. The Court of First Instance thus also infringed the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of proportionality. It is submitted that the Court of First Instance departed, without any legal basis, from its own case-law, to the detriment of the appellant, as regards the issue of the permissibility of a flat-rate for fines according to market share categories. Whereas the Court of First Instance had regarded market share categories or ‘portions’ with a margin of fluctuation of 5 % as appropriate in similar earlier judgments, it based its decision in the present case on market share categories of 10 %, to the significant detriment of the appellant as an undertaking which is grouped at the bottom end of its category.


title: Case C-411/12: Action brought on 7 September 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/10

         Action brought on 7 September 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-411/12)
   2012/C 355/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to abolish the State aid scheme found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 13/2006 (ex N 587/2005) (notified under document C(2011) 956 on 24 February 2012 and published in OJ 2011 L 309, pp. 1 to 22), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision and under the TFEU Treaty;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period allowed by the decision for recovery of the State aid declared unlawful expired on 24 June 2011. Furthermore, the defendant was required to notify the Commission, by 24 April 2001, of the total amount of aid to be recovered and the measures taken and planned to comply with the decision.
   At the date on which the present proceedings were brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the measures necessary to recover the aid granted to the recipient undertakings or communicated to the Commission all the information requested.