title: Case T-534/10: Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/45

         Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM)
   (Case T-534/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/81
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (Lefkosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Garmo AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2010 in Case R 794/2010-4;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Garmo AG

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HELLIM’ for goods in Class 29

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the collective word mark ‘HALLOUMI’ for goods in Class 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the marks and goods at issue are similar and there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks, and infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the applicant should have been able to rely on having the opportunity to respond to the observations of the respondent in the appeal proceedings before OHIM

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-578/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   (Case C-578/08)
   (2009/C 55/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rhimou Chakroun

      Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should the phrase ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ in Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification be interpreted as permitting a Member State to make an arrangement in respect of family reunification which results in family reunification not being granted to a sponsor who has provided evidence of having stable and regular resources to meet general subsistence costs, but who, given the level of such resources, shall nevertheless be entitled to claim special assistance to meet exceptional, individually determined, essential living costs, income-related remission of charges by municipal authorities, or income-support measures in the context of municipal minimum income policies?

               2.

               Should Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, in particular Article 2(d), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in applying the resource requirement pursuant to Article 7(1)(c), makes a distinction according to whether a family relationship arose before or after the entry of the resident of the Member State?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ L 251, p. 12).


title: Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-436/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2010 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/56

         Order of the General Court of 16 November 2010 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-436/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/99
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-36/01: Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
21.4.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/41
—     that, in any event, a period of three and a half years            —     Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 3(8) of the basic dumping
      elapsed between 1 December 1995, the date on which he                   regulation in determining that the Community industry
      was first found to be suffering from invalidity, and his                has suffered material injury,
      reinstatement in service on 16 June 1999, a fairly long
      period of time during which the applicant’s home in               —     Article 3(6) of the basic dumping regulation in determin-
      Belgium had to be kept up and maintained in order to be                 ing that imports from the targeted countries caused
      ready for use on his return to Belgium. Further, the                    material injury to the Community industry, and
      applicant incurred substantial costs prior to moving to
      Belgium.                                                          —     Articles 20(4), 20(5) and 6(9) of the basic dumping
                                                                              regulation, Article 253 EC as well as the applicant’s right
                                                                              to a fair hearing.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Action brought on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka
Electronic Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
                              Union
                          (Case T-35/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against
                                                                            the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                        (2001/C 118/111)
                                                                                (Case T-36/01)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/112)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka                                        (Language of the case: English)
Electronic Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under Chinese
Law, represented by Paul Waer, of the Brussels Bar.                     An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel,
                                                                        established under the laws of Belgium, represented by Susanne
                                                                        Möbus of Müller-Boré & Parnter, Munich (Germany).
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000
      of 27 November 2000 in so far as it imposes an anti-
      dumping duty on Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd.,             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      and;
                                                                        —     annul or alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the application.                  the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market of
                                                                              30 November 2000 (case R 0137/2000-1);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a company incorporated
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
under Chinese Law, whose object is to manufacture high
technology products. It claims that, by imposing anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain retail electronic weighing scales          Trade mark concerned:          A design applied to a surface
manufactured and exported by the applicant, the defendant                                              of the goods in accordance with
has infringed various provisions of the Council Regulation                                             Article 63(1), of the regulation on
No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from                                                    the Community trade mark (Case
countries not members of the European Communities (1) (the                                             R 0137/2000-1).
basic dumping regulation). It is submitted that the Council has
infringed:                                                              Product or service:            Classes 11, 19 and 21.
—     Article 2(7)c of the basic dumping regulation in denying          Challenged        decision     Refusal of registration by the
      that the applicant could be granted market economy                before the Board of            Examiner.
      status,                                                           Appeal:
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
Grounds submitted:            — Infringement of Article 7(1)b            The applicant states that, nearly four years after its complaint,
                                  of Regulation n. 40/94.                the Commission has not taken any provisional measure or
                              — Infringement of Article 7(3) of          adopted a definitive decision, and that the contested system is
                                  Regulation n. 40/94.                   therefore still being applied, even though it was accepted by
                                                                         the Commission from the start of the procedure that it was
                              — Infringement of the appli-               not consistent with Community law.
                                  cant’s right of defence.
Action brought on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. against
         Commission of the European Communities                          Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
                                                                         Rateau against the Commission of the European Com-
                         (Case T-42/01)                                                              munities
                       (2001/C 118/113)                                                           (Case T-43/01)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                               (2001/C 118/114)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des                                    (Language of the case: French)
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B., established in
Brussels, represented by Luc Misson, Laurent Denis and
Patrick Mbaya Kapita, Avocats, with an address for service in            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Luxembourg.                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
                                                                         Rateau, residing in Beersel (Belgium), represented by Eric
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Boigelot, avocat, address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
      measures within a reasonable time following the appli-             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
      No 17;
                                                                         —    annul the decision of the appointing authority to assign
—     Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the                      the applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, to the post
      necessary measures within one month against the parties                 of adviser on consumer information working to the Head
      complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant                of Unit Health and Consumer Protection SANCO.D.4
      to Regulation No 17;                                                    ‘Food law and biotechnology’, as it emerges from the
                                                                              organisational chart for DG SANCO of 15 June 2000 and
                                                                              the explicit decision adopted on 1 August 2000 by
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                              Mr Robert Coleman, Director General of the Directorate-
                                                                              General ‘Consumer policy and consumer health protec-
                                                                              tion’, brought to the applicant’s notice on 28 August
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               2000;
The applicant states that on 1 July 1997 it lodged a complaint           —    order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as compen-
on the basis of Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now                      sation for non-material damage, BEF 1 as provisional
Articles 39 EC and 81 EC) concerning the transfer system for                  damages in respect of injury assessed at BEF 10 000,
professional football players applied by organisations such as                subject to increase or decrease in the course of proceed-
FIFA, URBSFA and the Ligue professionelle de Football de                      ings;
Belgique. Following that complaint, registered under
No IV/36.583-SETCA-FGTB/FIFA, URBSFA, the Commission
initiated a procedure against FIFA.                                      —    in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-460/00: Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 45/14                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.2.2001
Action brought on 19 December 2000 by the Commission                    Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                     of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                         of Luxembourg                                                                     lic
                         (Case C-458/00)                                                          (Case C-460/00)
                          (2001/C 45/26)                                                           (2001/C 45/27)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
ties on 19 December 2000 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbaek, of its Legal
                                                                        represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser in its Legal
Service, and Joselle Adda, a national civil servant on
                                                                        Service, and Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service, with an address
secondment to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de ]a
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                        Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
1.    declare that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed                   Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 7 of                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary for it
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993                   to comply fully with Council Directive 96/48/EC of
      on the supervision and control of shipments of waste                    23 July 1996 (1) on the interoperability of the trans-
      within, into and out of the European Community (1) and                  European high-speed rail system, the Hellenic Republic
      Article 1(f) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (2)               has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
      in conjunction with point RI of Annex HB to that
      directive;
                                                                        —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission submits that it follows from point R1 of                 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Annex IIB to Directive 75/442, to which Article 1(f) of that            Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
directive refers, that not only use principally as a fuel but also      binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
the use of waste in connection with any other means of                  State to which they are addressed.
producing energy is to be treated as a recovery operation
under Community law and that that is the case as regards an
incineration plant, whether used principally or exclusively to          Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
incinerate household waste without a link with an industrial            States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
manufacturing process, where that plant is capable of                   particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
recovering a substantial proportion of the energy contained in          of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
the incinerated waste. It rejects in particular the proposition         of the Community.
that a disposal operation is involved (in the present case
‘incineration on land’ within the meaning of point D10 of
Annex IIA to Directive 75/442). The definitions of ‘incineration        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
plant’ in Directives 89/369/EEC, 89/429/EEC and 94/67/EC                measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
reflect the objective of protecting the environment from the
harmful effects of waste incineration as such, both where the
incineration is to be treated as a disposal operation and where         The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
it comes under recovery since none of those directives specifies        has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate that
that the incineration it governs constitutes a recovery or a            directive fully into Greek law.
disposal operation.
(1) OJ No L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.                                         (1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
(2) OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-387/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Coreck Maritime GmbH v Handelsveem BV and Others (Brussels Convention — Article 17 — Clause conferring jurisdiction — Formal conditions — Effects)

text:
C 28/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.1.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 9 November 2000                                                          of 9 November 2000
in Case C-381/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                       in Case C-387/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                       the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Coreck Maritime GmbH
Division)): Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies                                     v Handelsveem BV and Others (1)
                                Inc. (1)
                                                                           (Brussels Convention — Article 17 — Clause conferring
(Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agent                               jurisdiction — Formal conditions — Effects)
carrying on his activity in a Member State — Principal
established in a non-member country — Clause submitting
the agency contract to the law of the country of establishment
                                                                                (2001/C 28/07)
                          of the principal)
                           (2001/C 28/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-381/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal
of England and Wales (Civil Division), United Kingdom, for a               In Case C-387/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad
court between Ingmar GB Ltd and Eaton Leonard Technologies                 der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a
Inc. — on the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the                 court between Coreck Maritime GmbH and Handelsveem BV
Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents                  and Others — on the interpretation of the first paragraph of
(OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                        Article 17 of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber,                  1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the Convention
acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and                of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                  Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                  and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and — amended
judgment on 9 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                        text — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                           Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and
                                                                           by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989
Articles 17 and 18 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 Decem-            L 285, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
ber 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States              D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
relating to self-employed commercial agents, which guarantee certain       P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
rights to commercial agents after termination of agency contracts,         General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
must be applied where the commercial agent carried on his activity in      has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in which it has
a Member State although the principal is established in a non-             ruled:
member country and a clause of the contract stipulates that the
contract is to be governed by the law of that country.
                                                                           The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
                                                                           1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                                                                           Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
                                                                           United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
                                                                           Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                           Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession
                                                                           of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, must be
                                                                           interpreted as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 28/5
1.    It does not require that a jurisdiction clause be formulated in          Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
      such a way that the competent court can be determined on its             schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
      wording alone. It is sufficient that the clause state the objective      to members of their families moving within the Community,
      factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose          as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
      a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes              No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) and
      which have arisen or which may arise between them. Those                 amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2332/89 of 18 July
      factors, which must be sufficiently precise to enable the court          1989 (OJ 1989 L 224, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
      seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, may, where              composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,
      appropriate, be determined by the particular circumstances of            V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and
      the case.                                                                F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in
2.    It applies only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original   which it has ruled:
      contract is domiciled in a Contracting State and, secondly, the
      parties agree to submit any disputes before a court or the courts        Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council
      of a Contracting State.                                                  of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                               employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
3.    A jurisdiction clause agreed between a carrier and a shipper             families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
      which appears in a bill of lading is enforceable against a third         Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 and
      party bearer of the bill of lading if he succeeded to the rights         amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2332/89 of 18 July
      and obligations of the shipper under the applicable national             1989, do not preclude application of provisions of an inter-State
      law when he acquired the bill of lading. If he did not, it must          convention on unemployment insurance which are more advantageous
      be ascertained whether he accepted that clause having regard to          for the insured, provided that the latter exercised his right to freedom
      the requirements laid down in the first paragraph of Article 17          of movement before the date of entry into force of that regulation,
      of the Convention, as amended.                                           even if, as a result of the reference period prescribed by the national
                                                                               legislation applicable to determination of the insured’s entitlement, it
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                    is not possible for him to claim a right to benefits based entirely on
                                                                               the period prior to that date.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 9 November 2000
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-75/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundessozialgericht): Edmund Thelen v Bundesanstalt                                                of 9 November 2000
                               für Arbeit (1)
                                                                               in Case C-126/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
(Social security — Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC)                        from the Pretore di Torino): Roberto Vitari v European
No 1408/71 — Applicability of a convention between                                                    Training Foundation (1)
          Member States on unemployment insurance)
                                                                               (Local staff — Article 79 of the Conditions of Employment
                             (2001/C 28/08)                                    of other Servants — Fixed-term contract of employment —
                                                                               Conversion into contract for an indefinite period — Whether
                                                                                or not national legislation applicable)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/09)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-75/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundessozialge-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
richt (Federal Social Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling                                    in the European Court Reports)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Edmund
Thelen and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on the interpretation                    In Case C-126/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Torino


title: Joined Cases C-516/12 to C-518/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA v Regione Campania (C-516/12 to C-518/12), Provincia di Napoli (C-516/12 and C-518/12) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1191/69 — Public passenger transport services — Article 4 — Application for termination of public service obligation — Article 6 — Right to compensation in respect of the financial burdens resulting from the performance of a public service obligation)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA v Regione Campania (C-516/12 to C-518/12), Provincia di Napoli (C-516/12 and C-518/12)
   (Joined Cases C-516/12 to C-518/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1191/69 - Public passenger transport services - Article 4 - Application for termination of public service obligation - Article 6 - Right to compensation in respect of the financial burdens resulting from the performance of a public service obligation))
   2014/C 159/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA

      Defendants: Regione Campania (C-516/12 to C-518/12), Provincia di Napoli (C-516/12 and C-518/12)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1) — The right of private undertakings to compensation for the financial burdens arising from a public service obligation — Transport undertaking not having submitted to the competent authorities an application for termination of a public service obligation imposing on it an economic disadvantage — Obligation not forming part of the public service missions that the Member States are required to terminate

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 must be interpreted as meaning that, for public service obligations that came into existence before that regulation entered into force, acquisition of a right to compensation in respect of the financial burdens resulting from the performance of such an obligation is subject to the submission of an application for termination of that obligation by the undertaking concerned and to a decision to maintain the obligation or to terminate it at the end of a specified period being made by the competent authorities. By contrast, as regards public service obligations that came into existence after that date, acquisition of such a right to compensation is not subject to those conditions.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-722/16: Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (zerø)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/31

         Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (zerø)
   (Case T-722/16)
   (2016/C 462/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘zerø’ — Application for registration No 13 031 612

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2371/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 13 031 612 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those goods already covered, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order for it to reverse its own decision by granting registration of the mark in accordance with the findings of the Court;

               —

               order the other party to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 February 1998 in Case T-56/96: Alberto Maccaferri v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Temporary staff - Recruitment procedure - Transfer of post - Absence of statement of reasons - Misuse of powers - Legitimate expectations)

text:
C 113/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 11.4.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     Removal from the register of Case C-231/95 (1)
Tariefcommissie by order of that court of 24 February
1998 in the case of De Haan Beheer BV v. Inspecteur der                                           (98/C 113/24)
            Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Rotterdam
                           (Case C-61/98)
                            (98/C 113/23)
                                                                          By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                        of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case C-231/95 (Reference for
the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de PremieÁre
Tariefcommissie (Administrative Court for Customs and
                                                                          Instance, LieÁge): Criminal proceedings against Bent
Excise) of 24 February 1998, which was received at the
                                                                          Carlsen, civil party: Georges Vanhalle.
Court Registry on 2 March 1998, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of De Haan Beheer BV v. Inspecteur der
Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Rotterdam, on the following
                                                                          (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
question.
Is it to be assumed from rules of written or unwritten
Community customs law that customs authorities are
under an obligation such as that described in
paragraph 6.2 (1) in their relations with those liable to pay
customs duty and, if so, what are the legal consequences,
as regards assessment, entry in the accounts and collection
of the customs debt, if the authorities fail to comply with                     Removal from the register of Case C-277/97 (1)
that obligation?
                                                                                (98/C 113/25)
(1) The applicant, which makes it clear that it made the
    declarations in good faith, has, rightly in the Tariefcommissie's
    view, raised the question whether the customs authorities were
    not under a duty to warn a declarant in its position, within
    the period of approximately 10 days available in this case,           By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
    against possible fraudulent customers. Had it received such a         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
    warning, the applicant would have been able to take account           removal from the register of Case C-277/97: Commission
    of the inordinate risk involved and could ultimately have
    averted liability for a customs debt being incurred in its name
                                                                          of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
    in respect of the subsequent six declarations.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for annulment of the
                        of 17 February 1998                               Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant to the
                                                                          post of grade A 4/A 5 temporary staff member in the
in Case T-56/96: Alberto Maccaferri v. Commission of the                  Directorate-General for Enterprise Policy, Distributive
                    European Communities (1)                              Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives on the conclusion of
(Officials Ð Temporary staff Ð Recruitment procedure Ð                    competition 62T/XXIII/93 and, in so far as may be
Transfer of post Ð Absence of statement of reasons Ð                      necessary, for annulment of the Commission's decision to
         Misuse of powers Ð Legitimate expectations)                      transfer that post to another directorate-general and to
                                                                          replace it with a category B budgetary post Ð the Court
                            (98/C 113/26)                                 of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
                                                                          President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,
                 (Language of the case: French)                           Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
                                                                          which it:
In Case T-56/96: Alberto Maccaferri, a former member of
the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                     1. annuls the Commission's decision not to appoint the
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                     applicant to the post of grade A 4/A 5 temporary staff
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                           member in the Directorate-General for Enterprise
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v.                                 Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana                            on the conclusion of competition 62T/XXIII/93,
 ---pagebreak--- 11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 113/11
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 February 1998
( ) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
 1
                                                                        in Case T-105/96: Pharos SA v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 Ð Inclusion of
                                                                   somatosalm in the list of substances not subject to
                                                                   maximum residue limits Ð Action for failure to act Ð
                                                                                Action for damages)
                                                                                (98/C 113/28)
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 17 February 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-91/96: Nicole Hankart v. Council of the
                      European Union (1)
(Officials Ð Open competition Ð Detailed practical                 In Case T-105/96: Pharos SA, having its registered office
organisational arrangements Ð Loss of a written test Ð             in Seraing (Belgium), represented by Alexandre
                Non-admission to the next test)                    Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                         (98/C 113/27)                             8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                   Torre and Michel Nolin) Ð application, first, pursuant to
                                                                   Article 175 of the EC Treaty, for a declaration that the
                                                                   Commission unlawfully failed to pursue the procedure for
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   including somatosalm produced by the applicant in the list
                                                                   of substances not subject to maximum residue levels in
                                                                   Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of
                                                                   26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for
In Case T-91/96: Nicole Hankart, an official of the                the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (2), and,
Rhode-Saint-GeneÁse (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl           second, within the meaning of Articles 178 and 215
Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and VeÂronique             (second paragraph) of the Treaty for an order that the
Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in      Commission make good the damage which the applicant
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30             considers itself to have suffered through such inaction Ð
rue de Cessange, v. Council of the European Union                  the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
(Agent: TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð application for annulment of         B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
the decision of 13 March 1996 of the selection board in            Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
open competition Council/C/360 not to admit the                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
applicant to the second part of the written tests in that          which it:
competition Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February             1. declares that there is no need to grant                the
1998, in which it:                                                     Commission's request for evidence to be heard,
                                                                   2. declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the
1. annuls the decision of 13 March 1996 of the selection               application for a declaration of failure to act,
     board in open competition Council/C/360 not to
     admit Ms Hankart to the second part of the written
     tests in that competition,
                                                                   3. dismisses the claim for damages as unfounded,
2. orders the Council to pay the costs.                            4. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                           (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.


title: Case T-587/14: Action brought on 6 August 2014  — Crosfield Italia v ECHA

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/15

         Action brought on 6 August 2014 — Crosfield Italia v ECHA
   (Case T-587/14)
   2014/C 361/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Crosfield Italia Srl (Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should annul and thereby declare invalid and/or deprived of effect Decision No SME/2013/4672 of 28 May 2014 of the European Chemicals Agency, communicated to the applicant on 9 June 2014, thus rendering inoperative each of the effects of that decision, including the annulment of the invoices issued for the recovery of higher taxes and penalties purportedly owing.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the decision of the European Chemicals Agency that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), denying the applicant the benefits provided for in that regulation and providing that it is to pay the fees and charges allegedly owing.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-620/13 Marchi Industriale v ECHA.


title: Case T-139/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/17

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-139/15)
   (2015/C 190/20)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and A. Pálfy, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 53 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure of the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, with regard to Hungary, it excludes from European Union financing EUR 1 1 7 09  400 in relation to the sugar restructuring fund.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant rejects the requirement which the Commission considers to apply, but which does not appear expressly in the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-187/12 and C-189/12 SFIR and Others, according to which the time of presentation of the aid application to which the exclusion contained in the contested decision refers is important for the purposes of examining the applicability of the exceptions contained in the judgment. That conclusion, according to the applicant, is contrary to the logic of the restructuring programme and, moreover, completely overlooks the seasonal nature of sugar production and calls into question the practical applicability of the exceptions.
   Furthermore, the applicant considers that, although the Commission’s legal interpretation may be correct, as regards the legislation on restructuring aid — in particular the classification of silos — difficulties of interpretation have arisen, so that, given the uncertainty, the Commission acted in accordance with the law in reducing the amount excluded from European Union financing, having regard to the difficulties of interpretation inherent in the EU legislation, or completely disregarding the exclusion.


title: Case C-334/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium)) — The Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care — Closely related activities — Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care — Self-employed activity — Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis — Establishment of a similar nature)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium)) — The Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier
   (Case C-334/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) - Hospital and medical care - Closely related activities - Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care - Self-employed activity - Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis - Establishment of a similar nature))
   (2015/C 294/18)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Belgian State

      Defendant: Nathalie De Fruytier

      Operative part of the judgment

   Neither Article 13(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, nor Article 13(A)(1)(c) thereof, can be interpreted as applying to the transportation, for clinics and laboratories, of human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system. In particular, such an activity does not qualify for an exemption from value added tax as an activity closely related to services of a medical nature as provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(b), since that self-employed third party cannot be characterised as a ‘body governed by public law’ or fall within the definition of a ‘hospital’, a ‘centre for medical treatment’ or a centre for ‘diagnosis’ or any ‘other duly recognised establishment of a similar nature’, operating under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-382/12: Action brought on 24 August 2012 — Kampol v OHIM — Colmol (Nobel)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/29

         Action brought on 24 August 2012 — Kampol v OHIM — Colmol (Nobel)
   (Case T-382/12)
   2012/C 355/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kampol sp. z o.o. (Świdnica, Poland) (represented by: J. Kępiński, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Colmol-Colchões, SA (Oliveira de Azeméis, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Accept the appeal and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 June 2012 in case R 2286/2011-4;

               —

               Reject in its entirety the opposition No B 1762742 (Community trade mark application No 9080078);

               —

               Order OHIM to register the trade mark applied for;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Alternatively, refer back the case to the Fourth Board of Appeal to hear the case once again, in accordance with the binding criteria established by the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Nobel’ in colours black, gold and red, for goods in classes 10 and 24 — Community trade mark application No 9080078

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 373184 of the word mark ‘NOBEL’, for goods in class 20

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-417/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by the Kingdom of Denmark against the judgment delivered on 3 July 2012 in Case T-212/09 Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/2

         Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by the Kingdom of Denmark against the judgment delivered on 3 July 2012 in Case T-212/09 Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission
   (Case C-417/12 P)
   2012/C 373/02
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen, Agent and P. Biering and J. Pinborg, advokater)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Main head of claim:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court in whole or in part;

               —

               Find in favour of the appellant in respect of the arguments which were put forward before the General Court;

         In the alternative:

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh hearing and judgment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court’s judgment concerned the review of the Commission’s Decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred in the amount of DKK 749 million by the Kingdom of Denmark in respect of the setting aside of land.

               2.

               Firstly, in Denmark’s submission, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of whether the Danish remote-sensing control was sufficiently effective, as the Court proceeded on the assumption that the effectiveness of the remote-sensing control could be assessed by comparing it with GPS control conducted by the Commission’s representatives in connection with an inspection in Denmark.

               3.

               Secondly, the General Court’s interpretation of the relevant legal basis is, in Denmark’s submission, incorrect on a number of points, including in relation to the question whether a Commission decision can be maintained even though it is based on an incorrect interpretation of a rule which is completely central to the decision, namely the interpretation of the maintenance requirement in the first sentence of Article 19(4) of Regulation No 2316/1999.

               4.

               Thirdly, in Denmark’s submission, the General Court erred in law in relation to the applied burden of proof and standard of proof for the Commission and the Member States respectively, as the General Court states that the Commission, which conducted the inspections after the expiry of the set-aside period, can discharge its burden of proof by basing its presumptions on the circumstance that the established facts were also present during the set-aside period, and as the General Court states that Denmark’s burden of proof under the EAGGF implies that proof must be made out for all set-aside areas in Denmark, not just the areas inspected by the Commission. In so doing the General Court introduced a new, generally-formulated standard of proof for the Member States which departs from the Court of Justice’s previous case-law and which imposes a standard of proof on the Member States which is impossible to discharge in practice.

               5.

               Fourthly, the General Court, in relation to the question whether the application of financial corrections failed to make an assessment of whether the relevant conditions were satisfied, including whether there was an infringement of explicit EU rules, which Denmark had explicitly disputed at the hearing before the General Court.

               6.

               Fifthly, the General Court, in its judgment, substituted its own reasons for the Commission’s original reasons. The General Court’s reasons for upholding the decision were thus based on other — quantitative and qualitative — entirely irrelevant circumstances than those to which the Commission had accorded decisive weight for the decision. In Denmark’s submission, the General Court’s judgment is contrary to the proportionality principle.

               7.

               Lastly and sixthly, the General Court failed to rule on a number of the Government’s key submissions and the evidence adduced; on a number of points Denmark’s arguments and factual submissions were reproduced incorrectly, with the result that the judgment’s premises and result rests on an incorrect factual and legal basis.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in Case T-3/99: Banatrading GmbH v Council of the European Union (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Possibility of relying on WTO rules — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 307 EC) — Action for damages)

text:
C 3/22                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.1.2002
3.     Orders the Commission and the French Republic to bear their            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       own costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                           of 5 June 2001
                                                                          in Case T-6/99: ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          (ECSC Treaty — State aid — Investment aid — Operating
                                                                          aid — Scope of the ECSC Treaty — Principle of protection
                          of 12 July 2001                                                     of legitimate expectations)
in Case T-3/99: Banatrading GmbH v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/35)
(Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
— Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Possibility of relying on
WTO rules — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC                                         (Language of the case: German)
Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article
                  307 EC) — Action for damages)
                           (2002/C 3/34)
                    (Language of the case: German)                        In Case T-6/99: ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH, established
                                                                          in Riesa, Germany, represented by W.M. Kühne and S. Bauer,
                                                                          avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported
                                                                          by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and
In Case T-3/99: Banatrading GmbH, established in Hamburg                  C.-D. Quassowski) and by the Freistaat Sachsen, represented
(Germany), represented by G. Meier, lawyer, against the                   by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, avocats, with an address for
Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and                   service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
J.P. Hix) supported by the French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-            Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and P. Nemitz) —
Bellanger, C. Vasak, S. Seam and F. Million) and by the                   application for annulment of Commission Decision
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K.-D. Bor-                 1999/580/ECSC of 11 November 1998 concerning aid granted
chardt) — application for compensation for the loss which the             by Germany to ESF Elbestahlwerk Feralpi GmbH, Riesa, Saxony
applicant has suffered as a result of the Council introducing,            (OJ 1999 L 220, p. 28) — the Court of First Instance (Third
under Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February                   Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi,
1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas                  President, and P. Mengozzi, K. Lenaerts, R.M. Moura Ramos
(OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1), provisions which are alleged to conflict            and M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
with Article I.1 and Article XIII of the General Agreement on             Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 5 June 2001 in which
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — the Court of First Instance                    it:
(Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
which it:                                                                 1.    Annuls the first paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision
                                                                                1999/580/ECSC of 11 November 1998 concerning aid
                                                                                granted by Germany to EF Elbestahlwerk Feralpi GmbH, Riesa,
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                                Saxony, in so far as the part of the investment grant granted to
                                                                                the applicant in 1995 relating to investments in its cold wire
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs;                                   rod drawing plant is declared incompatible with Decision
                                                                                No 2496/96/ESC and the common market for coal and steel;
3.     Orders the Commission and the French Republic to bear their
       own costs.
                                                                          2.    Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision
                                                                                1999/580, in so far as it states that the aid element of the
( 1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                                guarantees covering the operating loans of DEM 7.2 million
                                                                                and DEM 4.8 million granted at the end of 1994 was not
                                                                                authorised;


title: Case T-219/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Ferracci v Commission

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/23

         Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Ferracci v Commission
   (Case T-219/13)
   2013/C 164/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pietro Ferracci (San Cesareo, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 19 December 2012, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action contests Commission Decision C(2012) 9461 final of 19 December 2012 declaring the aid granted, on the basis of the exemption from the municipal tax on real estate (ICI), to non-commercial entities for the pursuit of certain activities to be incompatible with the common market, without ordering the recovery of that aid, and declaring that the favourable treatment granted to the Church and to some sports clubs through Article 149 of the Testo unico delle imposte sul reddito (TUIR) (Codified Law on Income Tax), as well as the exemption from the IMU (Imposta Municipale Propria: the Municipality’s own tax) granted to some entities for the pursuit of specific activities, does not constitute State aid.
   In support of his action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement, misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant submits that, despite taking the view that Articles 107 and 108 TFEU had been infringed, the Commission did not order the recovery of the State aid mentioned above. In that regard, the applicant argues that there are no exceptional circumstances which would make recovery of the aid completely impossible and, in any event, it has not been proved that recovery would be completely impossible.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid measure implemented by the Italian Republic through Article 149(4) of the TUIR does not amount to a case of State aid for the purposes of the TFEU. In particular, the Commission found that there was no selective advantage; the applicant, by contrast, maintains that the legislation in question does confer a selective advantage upon ecclesiastic institutions recognised in civil law and amateur sports clubs and also meets all the other conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU for the existence of State aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid measure implemented by the Italian Republic through the ‘IMU Exemption’ does not amount to a case of State aid for the purposes of the TFEU. In particular, the Commission found that the beneficiaries of the IMU Exemption are not ‘undertakings’. The applicant, by contrast, maintains that those beneficiaries are ‘undertakings’ as defined in Community law and that all the conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU for the existence of State aid are met.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision must be annulled in view of the inadequate statement of reasons provided therein in relation to all the pleas set out above, in infringement of Article 296 TFEU.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2003 in Case T-233/02: Charis Alexandratos and Maria Panagiotou v Council of the European Union (Officials — Action for annulment — Open competition — Decision of the selection board refusing admission to the oral tests — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Scope of judicial review — Compliance with the rules governing the deliberations of the selection board)

text:
C 289/22                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      29.11.2003
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4.    Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half of                              of 17 September 2003
      the costs incurred by the applicant.
                                                                            in Case T-233/02: Charis Alexandratos and Maria Pana-
5.    Orders the applicant to bear one half of her own costs.                        giotou v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Action for annulment — Open competition —
(1) OJ 2002 C 219 of 14.09.02.                                              Decision of the selection board refusing admission to the
                                                                            oral tests — Scope of the obligation to state reasons —
                                                                            Scope of judicial review — Compliance with the rules
                                                                                governing the deliberations of the selection board)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            In Case T-233/02, Charis Alexandratos and Maria Panagiotou,
                      of 18 September 2003                                  residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by C. Tagaras,
                                                                            lawyer, v Council of the European Union, (Agents: F. Anton
                                                                            and D. Zahariou) — application for annulment of the decision
In Case T-221/02 Giorgio Lebedef and Others against the                     of the selection board in the Council’s open competition A/
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                           393 (2000/C98 A/02) refusing to admit the applicants to the
                                                                            oral tests for that competition, — the Court of First Instance
                                                                            (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President of the
(Officials — Pay — Travelling expenses — Method of                          Chamber, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar:
                             calculation)                                   I. Natsinas, Administrator, delivered a judgment on 17 Septem-
                                                                            ber 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (2003/C 289/46)
                                                                            1.    The action is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: French)                          2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ 2002 C 233 of 28.9.02.
In Case T-221/02: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, resident in Senningen-
berg (Luxembourg), and 63 other officials, represented by
G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for annulment of the Commission’s decision changing, with
effect from 1996 or 1997, the procedure for calculating the                                       of 30 September 2003
annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the journey
via Brindisi and annulment of the applicants’ reimbursement
statements implementing that decision — the Court of First                  in Case T-302/02 Michael Kenny v Court of Justice of the
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,                                  European Communities (1)
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, has
given a judgment on 18 September 2003 in which it:                          (Officials — Appointment — Discretion of the appointing
                                                                                authority — Interests of the service)
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2003/C 289/48)
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 247 of 12 October 2002.
                                                                            In Case T-302/02 Michael Kenny, an official of the Court of
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities, residing at Roodt-sur-
                                                                            Syre (Luxembourg), represented by G. Vandersanden and


title: Case T-50/09: Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Ifemy’s v OHIM — Dada & Co Kids (Dada & Co. kids)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/29

         Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Ifemy’s v OHIM — Dada & Co Kids (Dada & Co. kids)
   (Case T-50/09)
   2009/C 90/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ifemy’s Holding GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H.G. Augustinowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dada & Co Kids Srl (Prato, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2008 in case R 911/2008-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Dada & Co. kids’, for goods in class 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 30 114 449 of the word mark “DADA” for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the principles of equal treatment, faithful competition and rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 and 3 EC, as well as Articles 43 and 80(1) of Council Regulation 40/04 and Rules 50(2) and 80(2) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1), as the Board of Appeal failed to annul the decision of the Opposition Division which named the wrong applicant and, furthermore, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that before the Opposition Division the applicant was given every opportunity to submit the relevant evidence.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Case C-354/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: National Farmers' Union and Others (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Implementing rules - Interpretation and validity of penalties)

text:
C 295/6                1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27 . 9 . 97
     substantial part of the common market, it is contrary             Oberverwaltungsgericht fur das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
     to Article 90 (1 ) in conjunction with Article 86 of the          ( Higher Administrative Court for the Land of North
     Treaty for that undertaking to levy port duties of an             Rhine Westphalia ) ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in
     unreasonable amount pursuant to regulations adopted               the proceedings pending before that court between SAM
     by the Member State to which it is answerable or for              Schiffahrt GmbH, Heinz Stapf and Federal Republic of
     it to exempt its own ferry services from payment of               Germany — on the validity of Council Regulation ( EEC )
     those duties and, reciprocally, some of its trading               No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements
     partners ' ferry services, in so far as such exemptions           in inland waterway transport ( OJ L 116 , 28 . 4. 1989 ,
     involve application of dissimilar .conditions to                  p. 25 ), and of Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1102/89
     equivalent transactions. It is for the national court to          of 27 April 1989 laying down certain measures for
     determine whether, having regard to the level of the              implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101/89 ( OJ L 116 ,
     duties and the economic value of the services supplied,           28 . 4 . 1989, p. 30 ), as amended by Commission
     the amount of duty is actually unfair. It is also for the         Regulation ( EEC ) No 3685/89 of 8 December 1989 ( OJ
     national court to determine whether exempting its                 L 360, 9 . 12 . 1989 , p. 20 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
     own ferry services, and reciprocally those of some of             composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
     its trading partners, from payment of duties in fact              Chamber, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.
     amounts to the application of dissimilar conditions to            R Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     equivalent transactions.                                          Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator,
                                                                       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 1997,
                                                                       in which it has ruled :
4 . Article 90 (2) of the Treaty does not permit a public
     undertaking which owns and operates a commercial
     port to levy port duties charged for the use of port
     facilities which are contrary to Community law and                Examination of the questions referred has revealed no
     which are not necessary for the performance of the                factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council
     particular task assigned to it.                                   Regulation (EEC) No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989, on
                                                                       structural improvements in inland waterway transport,
                                                                       and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1102/89 of
5 . The persons or undertakings on whom the duty was                   27 April 1989 laying down certain measures for
     imposed in breach of Article 90 (1 ) in conjunction               implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1101 /89, as amended
     with Article 86 of the Treaty by a public undertaking             by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3685/89 of
     which is responsible to a national ministry and whose             8 December 1989 .
     budget comes under the Finance Act have in principle
     the right to repayment of the duty unduly paid.
                                                                        H OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
(•) OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                           of 17 July 1997                                                       of 17 July 1997
in Joined Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 ( references for a               in Case C-3 54/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht fur                  the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ): SAM Schiffahrt GmbH,                    Queen v. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
        Heinz Stapf v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ] )                       parte: National Farmers' Union and Others ( ')
 (Inland waterway transport — Structural improvements —                 (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC)
Contributions to Scrapping Fund — Validity of                           No 3887/92 — Integrated administration and control
                       Community legislation)                           system for certain Community aid schemes —
                            ( 97/C 295/09 )                             Implementing rules — Interpretation and validity of
                                                                                penalties)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                                   ( 97/C 295/ 10 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                        (Language of the case: English)
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 : references to the               In Case C-354/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                       of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
 ---pagebreak--- 27 . 9 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 295/7
Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               imposes the sanction of loss of the entire payment
pending before that court between The Queen and                           related to a specific area on a farmer when the area of
Minister for Agriculture , Fisheries and Food, ex parte:                  land as actually determined is found to be more than
National Farmers' Union and Others, on the                                20% smaller than that declared in the aid application
interpretation and validity of Article 9 of Commission                    and there is no false intention or serious negligence.
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated              (>) OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
administration and control system for certain Community
aid schemes ( OJ L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992, p. 36 ), the Court
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and
R J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; R Leger, Advocate-General; L.
Flewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
on 17 July 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber)
1 . Article 9 (2) to (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down                                                of 17 July 1997
     detailed rules for applying the integrated                     in Case C-17/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     administration and control system for certain                  the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Badische Erfrischungs
     Community aid schemes, prior to the entry into force           Getränke GmbH & Co. KG v. Land Baden-Württemberg (')
     of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July
     199S, must be interpreted as precluding any payment            (Natural mineral water — Definition — Water favourable
     linked to the arable areas when the difference between                                         to health )
     the area of set-aside land declared and that determined
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/ 11 )
     on inspection by the competent authorities exceeds
     20% and there is no false intention or serious
     negligence. However, in the light of Articles 1 (2) and                         (Language of the case: German)
     2 (2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/
     95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the
     European Communities ' financial interests, under
     which less severe penalties introduced by subsequent              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     amendments to Community provisions must be                                published in the European Court Reports)
     applied retroactively, the amendments made to
     Article 9 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 by
     Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 apply to circumstances              In Case C-17/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
     which occurred before its entry into force.                    of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
     Consequently, the calculation of the maximum eligible          ( Federal Administrative Court ) for a preliminary ruling in
     area for the compensatory payments for arable crop             the proceedings pending before that court between
     producers must be made, under Article 9 (4) of                 Badische Erfrischungs-Getranke GmbH & Co . KG and
     Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, as amended by                     Land Baden-Wurttemberg — on the interpretation of
     Regulation (EC) No 1648/95, on the basis of the area           Council Directive 80/777/EEC of 15 July 1980 on the
     of set-aside land actually determined and on a pro rata        approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
     basis for each crop concerned.                                 to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral
                                                                    waters ( OJ L 229, 3 . 8 . 1980 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( First
                                                                    Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the
2 . Article 9 (2) to (4) of Regulation    (EEC) No 3887/92          Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
     must be interpreted as precluding   the payment of any         M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein,
     premium for bovine animals to         farmers when the         Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     forage area as actually determined   is found to be more       on 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled:
     than 20% smaller than that declared in the area aid
     application and there is no false intention or serious
     negligence.                                                    Article 1 (1 ) of Council Directive 80/777/EEC of 15 July
                                                                     1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
                                                                    States relating to the exploitation and marketing of
 3 . Consideration of Article 9 (2) to (4) of Regulation            natural mineral waters, in conjunction with Annex I,
      (EEC) No 3887/92 has disclosed no factors of such a           Section I, paragraphs 1 and 2, thereto, must be interpreted
     kind as to affect its validity in the light of the             as precluding a Member State from making the
     principles of proportionality, legal certainty and non        recognition of water as natural mineral water dependent
     discrimination .                                                on its possessing properties favourable to health.
                                                                     (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
 4 . Consideration of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 has
     disclosed no factors of such a kind as to affect the
      validity of Article 9 (2) to (4) thereof in so far as it


title: Case C-37/15: Order of the President of the Court of 6 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Cav. Gicacomo Bolasco di Gianni Bolasco Sas v Comune di Monastir, Equitalia Centro SpA

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Cav. Gicacomo Bolasco di Gianni Bolasco Sas v Comune di Monastir, Equitalia Centro SpA
   (Case C-37/15) (1)

   (2015/C 320/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.