title: Joined Cases C-439/07 and C-499/07: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel and the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge, Belgium) — Belgische Staat v KBC Bank NV (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 4(1) — National legislation designed to prevent double taxation of distributed profits — Deduction of the amount of dividends received from a parent company’s basis of assessment only in so far as it has made taxable profits)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/13

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel and the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge, Belgium) — Belgische Staat v KBC Bank NV
   (Joined Cases C-439/07 and C-499/07) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(1) - National legislation designed to prevent double taxation of distributed profits - Deduction of the amount of dividends received from a parent company’s basis of assessment only in so far as it has made taxable profits)
   2009/C 205/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel, Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Belgische Staat (C-439/07), Beleggen, Risicokapitaal, Beheer NV (C-499/07)

      Defendants: KBC Bank NV (C-439/07), Belgische Staat (C-499/07)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC and Article 4(1), first indent, and 4(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — National provisions designed to abolish double taxation of distributed profits — System for the deduction of definitively taxed income

      Operative part

               (1)

               Article 4(1), first indent, of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of the exemption of the dividends received by a parent company established in that State from a subsidiary with its seat in another Member State, provides that those dividends are included in the basis of assessment of the parent company and 95 % of those dividends are subsequently deducted, in so far as, during the taxable period concerned, a profit remains after deduction of the other exonerated dividends, with the consequence that:

                           —

                           if the parent company had no or insufficient taxable profits during the taxable period in which the distributed profits were received, it would in a subsequent taxable period be taxed on those distributed profits received,
                           or that

                           —

                           the losses of that taxable period would be offset by means of distributed profits, and cannot, in the amount of those distributed profits, be carried forward to a subsequent taxable period.

               (2)

               Article 4(1), first indent, of Directive 90/435, read in combination with Article 4(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not oblige Member States necessarily to allow profits distributed to a parent company established in that State by its subsidiary with its seat in another Member State to be wholly deductible from the profits of the taxable period of the parent company and that it be possible for the resulting loss to be carried forward to a subsequent taxable period. It is for the Member States to estalbish, taking account both of the needs of their domestic legal system and the option provided for in Article 4(2), the method by which the result prescribed in Article 4(1), first indent, is achieved.
               However, where a Member State has chosen the exemption system provided for in Article 4(1), first indent, of Directive 90/435 and, in principle, the legislation of that Member State allows losses to be carried forward to subsequent taxable periods, that provision precludes legislation of a Member State which has the effect of limiting, to the amount of the dividends received, the losses of the parent company which may be carried forward.

               (3)

               Where, in regulating purely internal situations, domestic legislation adopts the same solutions as those adopted in Community law, it is for the national court alone, pursuant to the allocation of judicial functions between national courts and the Court of Justice under Article 234 EC, to assess the precise scope of that reference to Community law, consideration of the limits which the national legislature may have placed on the application of Community law to purely internal situations being a matter for the law of the Member State concerned and consequently falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State.

               (4)

               Where, under the national legislation of a Member State, dividends originating from a company established in a non-Member State are entitled to less favourable treatment than those from a company with its seat in that Member State, it is for the national court, taking account both of the purpose of the national legislation and of the facts of the case before it, to ascertain whether Article 56 EC is applicable and, if so, whether it precludes the different treatment.

               (5)

               Article 43 EC does not preclude the legislation of a Member State which provides that a parent company established in a Member State and receiving profits distributed by its subsidiary with its seat in another Member State may deduct those profits from its taxable income only up to the amount of the profits of the taxable period during which the profits were distributed, whereas a full exemption of the distributed profits would be possible if that company had set up a permanent establishment in that other Member State, on condition that profits from entities set up in another Member State are not treated in a manner that is discriminatory in comparison with the treatment granted to profits from comparable national entities.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007

      OJ C 22, 26.01.2008.


18.12.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 366/33
       Removal from the register of Case T-198/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-97/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/76)                                                         (1999/C 366/79)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   By order of 9 July 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
Case T-198/96: Christine Dalby v Commission of the European              ordered the removal from the register of Case T-97/98:
Communities.                                                             Maurizio Gastaldello v Committee of the Regions of the
                                                                         European Union.
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-218/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/77)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-78/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/80)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-218/96: Paul Hodson v Commission of the European                  By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the First
Communities.                                                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-78/99: Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                             Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 174 of 19.6.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case T-59/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/78)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/81)
By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                   (Language of the case: French)
the register of Case T-59/98: Honeywell Inc. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 22 October 1999, the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
(1) OJ No C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                            the removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R: Luigia
                                                                         Dricot-Daniele, Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case T-447/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — nkt cables and NKT Holding v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/47

         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — nkt cables and NKT Holding v Commission
   (Case T-447/14)
   2014/C 282/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: nkt cables GmbH (Köln, Germany) and NKT Holding A/S (Brøndby, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kofmann and B. Creve, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’);

               —

               In the alternative, partially annul the Decision and substantially reduce the fine imposed on them;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               Take any other measures that it considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed the applicants' rights of defence and the general principle of equality of arms, by refusing to allow them to access potentially exculpatory evidence received by the Commission after the notification of its Statement of Objections.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Commission wrongly defined the territorial scope of the single and continuous infringement and erroneously applied the effects criterion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision contained manifest errors of assessment in relation to the conduct in which NKT Cables was found to have been involved, and in relation to the conclusion that such conduct proved NKT Cables' participation in or awareness of all activities constituting the single and continuous infringement.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its findings as to the duration of NKT Cables' participation in the single and continuous infringement.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the level of the fine which was imposed on the Applicants was unjustifiably and disproportionately high.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 1999 in Case T-129/98: Enrico Sabbioni v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Automatic transfer — Act adversely affecting an official — Statement of reasons — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 20/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               at Winksele (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
                                                                          Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                     of 23 November 1999                                  service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                          30 Rue de Cessange, v European Centre for the Development
                                                                          of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Agent: Bertrand Wägenbaur)
in Case T-129/98: Enrico Sabbioni v Commission of the                     — application for annulment of the decision of the European
                  European Communities (1)                                Centre for the Development of Vocational Training of 9 March
                                                                          1998 demanding reimbursement of a sum corresponding to
(Officials — Automatic transfer — Act adversely affecting                 two thirds of the installation allowance paid to the applicant
   an official — Statement of reasons — Misuse of powers)                 upon her entry into service — the Court of First Instance,
                                                                          composed of C.W. Bellamy, sitting as a single Judge; J. Palacio
                                                                          González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
                         (2000/C 20/39)                                   ment on 28 October 1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. Dismisses the action;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-129/98: Enrico Sabbioni, an official of the Com-
mission, employed at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra,
residing at Biandronno, Italy, represented by Giuseppe Marche-            (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
sini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10
Rue Mathias Hardt v Commission of the European Community
(Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) — application for annulment of the
decisions whereby the Commission transferred the applicant
of its own motion to another division and removed from his
initial duties, and a claim for damages — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President,                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 No-
vember 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                                          of 8 October 1999
1. The application is dismissed.                                           in Case T-89/99 R: Oliver Valk v European Parliament (1)
2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (No need to adjudicate)
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                                                                                (2000/C 20/41)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-89/99 R: Oliver Valk, represented by Joachim Kayser,
                                                                          Rechtsanwalt, Körnerstrasse 5, 10785 Berlin, v European
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Evelyn Waldherr) —
                                                                          application for interim measures seeking, first, the withdrawal
                      of 28 October 1999                                  of the decision of the selection board of 9 February 1999
                                                                          refusing to admit the applicant to the written tests in Compe-
                                                                          tition PE/86/A (OJ 1998 C 77 A, p. 1) and, second, to allow
in Case T-180/98: Elizabeth Cotrim v European Centre for                  the applicant to take part in the competition procedure — the
   the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (1)                   President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
                                                                          8 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Temporary staff — Installation allowance — Early termi-
      nation of contract — Recovery of undue payment)                     1. It is unnecessary to adjudicate in the application for interim
                                                                               measures;
                         (2000/C 20/40)
                                                                          2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                   (Language of the case: French)                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
In Case T-180/98: Elizabeth Cotrim, a probationary official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing


title: Action brought on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-139/96)

text:
6 . 7 . 96             I EN |                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 197/9
Action brought on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                           turnover taxes ( 1 ), to be interpreted as including the services
                                     Germany                                   of an arbitrator ?
                            ( Case C- 1 3 9/96 )
                                ( 96/C 197/ 15                                 (!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ; EE 09 Fl , p . 54 .
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                              Action brought on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the
Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the                                                      Germany
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( Case C-146/96)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/17 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to                   brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with                    Communities on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the
       Directives       93/48/EEC ( 1 ),           93/49/EEC (2 )    and       European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
       93/61 /EEC ( 3 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has                   Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and                 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the
       under those Directives;                                                  Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                       1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
in Case C-135/96 (4 ); the time-limit for transposition                               adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 expired in each case on 31 December 1993 .                                           Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the
                                                                                control of potato ring rot { 1 ), the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 H     OJ  No L 250 , 7 . 10 .    1993 , p .  1.                                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 (2 )  OJ  No L 250 , 7. 10 .      1993 , p . 9.
 (3 )  OJ  No L 250,  7 . 10 .     1993 , p . 19 .                              2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 (4)   OJ  No C 180 ,  22 . 6 .    1996 , p . 23 .
                                                                                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                                in Case C-135/96 (2); the time-limit for transposition
                                                                                expired on 15 November 1993 .
                                                                                i 1 ) OJ No L 259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                ( 2 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996, p . 23 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
 Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of 15 March 1996 in
      the case of Bernd von Hoffmann v. Finanzamt Trier
                              ( Case C-145 /96 )
                                  ( 96/C 197/ 16
                                                                                Action brought on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands against the Commission of the European
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                       Communities
  European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                                                    (Case C-147/96)
  ( Finance Court) Rheinland-Pfalz (Third Senate ) of
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/18 )
  15 March 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
  on 3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bernd
  von Hoffmann v . Finanzamt Trier on the following                              An action against the Commission of the European
  question :                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of
  Is Article 9 ( 2 ) ( e ) of Title VI ( third group : ' services of             the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and J. S. van
  consultants, engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers,                          den Oosterkamp, acting as agents .
  accountants and other similar services, as well as data
  processing and the supplying of information') of the Sixth                     The applicant claims that the Court should declare void the
   Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             Commission's decision communicated in its letter of


title: Case F-93/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Jimenez Krause v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Jimenez Krause v Commission
   (Case F-93/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/68)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16/11/2013, p. 32.


title: Case T-178/15: Action brought on 8 April 2015 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/30

         Action brought on 8 April 2015 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
   (Case T-178/15)
   (2015/C 245/36)
   Language of the case: Germany

      Parties

      Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, Lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission’s decision of 2 March 2015;

               —

               allow the claimants’ opposition of 23 December 2014 in proceedings AT-TSG-0007-01035.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants claim that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law and should therefore be annulled. Under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), the applicants, as persons lodging a notice of opposition, had a three-month period in which they were required to lodge a notice of opposition with the national authorities if they wished to lodge an opposition to an application for a traditional speciality guaranteed. They state that the publication at issue (OJ 2014 C 340, p. 6) was effected on 30 September 2014 and that on 23 December 2014 the opposition was lodged with the national authorities. The applicants allege that they are not responsible for any subsequent inobservance of a time-limit. They add that they alone cannot influence the timeous action of the competent authority with regard to the forwarding of oppositions to the Commission and that the contested decision did not have regard to the fact that the notice of opposition was lodged in time. That decision had regard only to the date at which the notice was received by the European Commission.
   In addition, it is claimed that Article 51 of Regulation No 1151/2012 does not lay down a time-limit for the forwarding of the notice of opposition through a national authority. It is therefore only the applicants’ submission of the notice of opposition to the national authorities which is relevant.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Region of Tuscany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-265/97)

text:
20 . 12 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 387/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Region of
                                                                        Tuscany against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
By the contested decision, the defendant, amending
Decision C(95 ) 444/3 of 5 April 1995 concerning the                                              ( Case T-265 /97 )
grant of a contribution from the EAGGF, changed the                                                  ( 97/C 387/40 )
Leader II Operational Programme as regards Point 1.3 and
Point 6.1 , and in so doing failed to include among the
areas for action the territory of the Comunita Montana                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Penisola Sorrentina, since 'on the basis of the provisions of
the programme, it does not appear necessary to promote                  An action against the Commission of the European
and implement further Programmi di Azione Locale ( Local                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Action Programmes — " PALs "), in view of the fact that in              the European Communities on 12 May 1997 by the
the latter area socioeconomic development is more                       Region of Tuscany, represented by Vito Vacchi and Lucia
advanced and more integrated than in the other areas                    Bora , of the Florence Bar, with an address for service in
concerned '. According to the applicant, those statements               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue
are not only incorrect but also lack any basis whatsoever.              de Vianden, and subsequently referred, on the ground of
                                                                        manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, to the
                                                                        Court of First Instance by order of the Court of Justice of
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement            1 October 1997 .
of Article 190 of the Treaty of Rome, breach of essential
procedural requirements, breach of the obligation of
sound administration and of the principle of the                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
protection of legitimate expectations, as well as a total
lack of any statement of reasons and manifest lack of any
proper basis.                                                           — annul Memorandum VI/040551 of the European
                                                                            Commission — Directorate General for Agriculture —
                                                                            of 21 November 1994,
It is alleged, first, that the contested decision is based on
the misconception that a PAL had already been approved                  — annul the act — never notified to the applicant region
for the area in question, in disregard of the fact that the                 — by which the European Commission withdrew the
PAL submitted by the applicant had not been granted                         Community assistance earmarked under the Integrated
financing. Furthermore, the area in question is not among                   Mediterranean Programme ( IMP ) for Project
the most developed in Campania .                                            No 88.20.IT.006.0 ( works for the supply of potable
                                                                            water in Tuscany ),
The applicant also alleges that the choice made by the
defendant is contradictory. It is considered in that regard             — annul the European Commission's memorandum of
that in the Regional Programme for implementation of the                     31 January 1997, received by the applicant on
Leader II, described above, the Campania Region, in                          7 February 1997, by which the Commission informed
applying Directive 75/268/EEC ('), initially included                        it that the assistance had been withdrawn .
Penisola Sorrentina among the so-called 'less-favoured '
areas for action on the basis of certain socio-economic
indicators and then, in the light of the same indicators,               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
decided that it was unnecessary to promote and
implement further PALs in that area .                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are those adduced
                                                                        in Case T-81 /97 Region of Tuscany v. Commission (').
The defendant confined itself to excluding the Sorrentina
Area on the ground that it was developed, without                       (') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997, p . 21 .
however giving the slightest indication of the reasons
justifying that decision and without undertaking an
appropriate inquiry.
In the applicant's view, such an inquiry would have made
it clear that the area in question is classified, within the            Action brought on 13 October 1997 by Azienda Agricola
meaning of the abovementioned Directive 75/268/EEC, as                  Tre e Mezzo against Commission of the European
 'a mountain area and less favoured area ' and that, for that                                          Communities
precise reason, it was included in the Leader II                                                   ( Case T-269/97 )
Programme, among priority areas for action .
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/41 )
 (') Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain
     and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas ( OJ                     (Language of the case: Italian)
     L 128 , 19 . 5 . 1975 , p. 1 ).
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länsrätten, County of Kopparberg, by order of that court of 22 March 1996 in the case of Jessica Safir v. County of Kopparberg Tax Authority (Case C-118/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 158/9
      contrary to Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which taxes             Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for Carina Mosbsek v .
      electricity supplied from other Member States more               Lonmodtagernes Garantifond on the following question:
      heavily than domestically produced electricity ?
                                                                       In a situation where the employer is not established in the
3 . If the answer to Question 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, is         Member State in which the employee is resident and is solely
      the system described therein to be regarded as contrary          represented in the State of the employee's residence by way
      to the EC Treaty in its entirety or in some respects ?           of the said employee's work, which, inter alia, is carried out
                                                                       in office premises rented by the employer for the employee's
                                                                       use , is it the guarantee institution in the country where the
                                                                       employer is established or the guarantee institution in the
                                                                       country where the employee is resident which, on the
                                                                       employer's insolvency, according to Article 3 of Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                       80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
by order of 8 February 1996 in the case of Reisebiiro Binder
                                                                       Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
         GmbH v. Finanzamt Stuttgart-Kôrperschaften
                                                                       event of the insolvency of their employer ( l ) is to guarantee
                        ( Case C-1 16/96                               payment of the employee's outstanding claims resulting
                          ( 96/C 158/ 19 )                             from the employment relationship in question ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (') OJ No L 283 , 28 . 10 . 1980 , p . 23 .
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
( Federal Finance Court), Fifth Chamber, of 8 February
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April
1996 , in the case of Reisebiiro Binder GmbH v . Finanzamt
Stuttgart-Kôrperschaften          ( Stuttgart    Tax      Office :
Corporations ), on the following questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lansràtten,
Is Article 9 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 77/388/EEC (') to be             County of Kopparberg, by order of that court of 22 March
interpreted as meaning that for the determination of the               1996 in the case of Jessica Safir v. County of Kopparberg
taxable amount for that part of the transport which takes                                        Tax Authority
place within the country in the case of cross-frontier                                         ( Case C-l 18/96 )
transport of passengers the inclusive consideration :                                            ( 96/C 158/21 )
( a ) must always be apportioned according to the
       proportion of the distances covered, so that stopping           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       and waiting times between the portions of the                   European Communities by an order of the Lansràtten
       transport, for example with educational trips, are not          ( County Administrative Court ) Kopparberg of 22 March
       taken into account, or                                          1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 April
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jessica Safir
( b ) does the provision contain only a rule with regard to the        v . County of Kopparberg Tax Authority on the following
       place where the transport services are supplied , under         question :
       which that place is to be determined only according to
       the distances covered, so that the Member States are            Where in a Member State , the taxation of savings policies
       free to determine the criterion by which the inclusive          issued by domestic life assurance companies and foreign life
       consideration is to be apportioned between the taxable          assurance companies conducting insurance business in the
       and the non-taxable parts of the transport ?                    Member State through an establishment, takes the form of a
                                                                       tax on yield from insurance capital calculated in a standard
C ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                        way and levied on the insurer, is it contrary to Articles 6 , 59,
                                                                       60 or 73b and 73d of the Treaty of Rome for tax to be
                                                                       charged — with the aim of maintaining competitive
                                                                       neutrality between domestic and foreign savings policies —
                                                                       on insurance premiums paid by policyholders resident in the
                                                                       Member State under life assurance policies contracted with
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by            insurers which are established in another Member State and
a decision of that court of 27 March 1996 in the case of               which are operating in the firstmentioned Member State in
Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for                    accordance with the rules on corss-border insurance
       Carina Mosbaek v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond                    activities, if the tax on the aforementioned insurance
                        ( Case C-1 17/96 )                             premiums can, upon application to the tax administration,
                           ( 96/C 158/20 )                             be reduced entirely, or by 50 % in the event that the
                                                                       insurance company established abroad is subject to income
                                                                       tax in the State in which it is domiciled that is comparable to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 the tax charged on domestic savings policies in the other
European Communities by an order of the 0stre Landsret                 Member State ?
( Eastern Regional Court ) of 27 March 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 April 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Danmarks Aktive


title: Case C-320/09 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2009 by A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-301/02 AEM v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/39

         Appeal brought on 11 August 2009 by A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-301/02 AEM v Commission
   (Case C-320/09 P)
   2009/C 267/70
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: A2A SpA, formrely ASM Brescia SpA (represented by: A. Giardina, A. Santa Maria, C. Croff and G. Pizzonia, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment in Case T 301/02 (‘the judgment’) on the ground that it infringes Community law, in particular Article 87 of the EC Treaty, and fails to state adequate reasons, in so far as it classifies the three-year income tax exemption as State aid;

               —

               set aside the judgment on the ground that it applies Community law in a manner that is incorrect and contradictory, in so far as it does not classify the three-year income tax exemption as existing aid;

               —

               set aside the judgment on the ground that it infringes Community law, in so far as it finds that the order for recovery in the Decision (1) is lawful; and, accordingly,

               —

               annul the Decision in so far as it finds that the transitional scheme ensuring fiscal continuity for public utilities with majority public shareholdings constitutes unlawful State aid incompatible with the common market (Article 2 of the Decision) and/or in so far as it orders Italy to recover that aid from the beneficiaries (Article 3 of the Decision);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the cots.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its first ground of appeal, A2A SpA alleges that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 87(1) EC and failed to state adequate reasons, in so far as the judgment classifies the three-year income tax exemption as State aid. In particular, according to the appellant, the Commission failed to demonstrate in the Decision that, in the circumstances of the case, two of the conditions laid down in Article 87(1) EC, namely the distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States, are satisfied. The Court of First Instance failed properly to verify the assumptions on which the Commission based its conclusion that the measure in question was to be classified as ‘aid’, which it was, in fact, required to do in accordance with its duty to carry out a ‘comprehensive’ review imposed by Community case-law.
   By its second ground of appeal, in the alternative, the appellant alleges infringement by the Court of First Instance of Article 88 EC and of its duty to state reason and, at the same time, seeks the annulment of the judgment in so far as it classifies the three-year income tax exemption as ‘new aid’. In particular, the Court of First Instance, blindly repeating the Commission’s findings, did not accept that the three-year exemption measures in favour of municipal undertakings converted into public limited companies may be regarded as ‘existing aid’. Instead, it reached the opposite conclusion, considering that the tax exemption scheme in question, which was introduced before the entry into force of the EC Treaty, also applied to municipal undertakings, which, as the Commission itself accepted, constitute the same economic entities as the companies set up under Law No 142/90.
   Finally, by its third ground of appeal, A2A submits, in the further alternative, that the judgment should be set aside on the ground that it infringes Community law and Community law principles, in so far as it finds that the order for recovery in the Decision is lawful. According to the appellant, the judgment should be set aside in that, in contrast with previous decisions of the Community judicature, it upholds the lawfulness of the general order for recovery in the Decision and, essentially, finds that the national authorities do not have any discretion whatsoever in the matter.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax incentives and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).


title: Case C-196/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(1) and (3) — Court having jurisdiction — Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort or delict’ — Abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship — Action for damages — Concepts of ‘sale of goods’ and ‘provision of services’)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA
   (Case C-196/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(1) and (3) - Court having jurisdiction - Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort or delict’ - Abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship - Action for damages - Concepts of ‘sale of goods’ and ‘provision of services’))
   (2016/C 335/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Granarolo SpA

      Defendant: Ambrosi Emmi France SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages founded on an abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship, such as the termination at issue in the main proceedings, is not a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of that regulation if a tacit contractual relationship existed between the parties, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain. Demonstration of the existence of a tacit contractual relationship of that kind must be based on a body of consistent evidence, which may include in particular the existence of a long-standing business relationship, the good faith between the parties, the regularity of the transactions and their development over time expressed in terms of quantity and value, any agreements as to prices charged and/or discounts granted, and the correspondence exchanged.

               2.

               Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that a long-standing business relationship, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is to be classified as a ‘contract for the sale of goods’ if the characteristic obligation of the contract at issue is the supply of goods or as a ‘contract for the provision of services’ if the characteristic obligation is a supply of services, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 October 1998 in Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Judgment of the Court of First Instance - Application for reclassification in grade - Objection of inadmissibility - Material new fact - Admissibility) (1999/C 1/27)

text:
4.1.1999              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 1/13
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and Karel Johannes
                      of 30 October 1998                             Defares, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue
in Case T-290/94 (92): Ford James France, formerly                   Goethe, supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the European                         represented by Marc Fierstra, Legal Adviser, acting as
                        Communities (1)                              Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo, against Council
                      (Taxation of costs)
                                                                     of the European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen
                         (1999/C 1/25)                               Huber and Guus Houttuin), supported by Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn),
                                                                     Kingdom of Spain, represented by Luis PeÂrez de Ayala
               (Language of the case: French)                        Becerril, Abogado del Estado, of the Community Legal
                                                                     Affairs Department, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 Rue
In Case T-290/94 (92): Ford James France, formerly
                                                                     Emmanuel Servais, French Republic, represented by
Kaysersberg SA, established at Kunheim (France),
                                                                     Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Head of Subdirectorate in the
represented by Dominique Voillemot and Jacques-Philippe
                                                                     Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
Gunther, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Claude Chavance, Foreign Affairs Secretary, acting as
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Goethe,     against     Commission of the            European
                                                                     French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II, and Italian
Communities (Agents: initially Francisco GonzaÂlez Diaz,
                                                                     Republic, represented by Umberto Colesanti, acting as
of its Legal Service, and GeÂraud de Bergues, a national
                                                                     Agent, assisted by Francesca Quadri, Avvocato dello Stato,
official on secondment to the Commission, subsequently
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
Giuliano Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and Guy
                                                                     Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde Ð application for
Charrier, a national official on secondment to the
                                                                     annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of
Commission), supported by Procter & Gamble GmbH,
                                                                     17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
established at Schwalbach (Germany), represented by
                                                                     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe
                                                                     countries and territories (OJ L 51, 21.2.1997, p. 1) Ð the
Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, with an address
                                                                     Courts of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger
                                                                     M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H.
and Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill Ð application for
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 November 1998, the
taxation of the costs to be paid by the applicant to the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
intervener following the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 27 November 1997 in Case T-290/94
Kaysersberg v. Commission [1997] ECR II-2137 Ð the                   1. The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in
Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended                          Case T-41/97 Antillean Rice Mills v. Council, in order
Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                  that the Court of Justice may rule on the applications
C. W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A. W. H. Meij and M. Vilaras,                  for annulment.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 October
1998 in which it:
                                                                     2. Costs are reserved.
Fixes the total amount of costs to be paid by Ford James
France to Procter & Gamble GmbH at BEF 1 500 000.                    (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 316, 12.11.1994.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 October 1998
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     in Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v.
                    of 16 November 1998                                      Commission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-41/97: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Council of               (Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                    the European Union (1)                           Application for reclassification in grade Ð Objection of
                  (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                           inadmissibility Ð Material new fact Ð Admissibility)
                         (1999/C 1/26)                                                       (1999/C 1/27)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case T-41/97, Antillean Rice Mills NV, established in             In Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal, an
Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by Winfred                official of the Commission of the European Communities,
 ---pagebreak--- C 1/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
residing in Brussels, represented by Antonio Creus and              1. The application is dimissed as inadmissible;
Alex Subirachs Amigó, of the Barcelona Bar, with an
address for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for                     2. The applicant is to pay the costs;
annulment, first, of the Commission's decision of
24 October 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for
reclassification and, second, of the Commission's decision
of 29 April 1997 rejecting the complaint lodged against             3. The applicant for leave to intervene is to bear its own
the decision of 24 October 1996 Ð the Court of First                    costs.
Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President; J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 14 October 1998, the                    (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 28 October 1998
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                           in Case T-100/98: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                    (Action for damages Ð Action manifestly lacking any
                                                                                foundation in law)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/29)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     of 23 October 1998
in Case T-609/97: Regione Puglia v. Commission of the
      European Communities and Kingdom of Spain (1)
                                                                    In Case T-100/98: Anthony Goldstein, residing in Harrow,
(Agriculture Ð Regulation having general application Ð              Middlesex, England, represented by Raymond St John
    Action brought by a regional body Ð Inadmissibility)            Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King's Bench Walk, Inner Temple,
                                                                    London, against Commission of the European
                        (1999/C 1/28)                               Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) Ð application under
                                                                    Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage which the
                                                                    applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     publication, under the Commission's responsibility, of a
                                                                    fact sheet concerning the recognition of diplomas and
                                                                    qualifications for general and specialist medical
                                                                    practitioners Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
In Case T-609/97: Regione Puglia, represented by                    Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President,
Francesco Rosi and Antonio Campagnola, of the Rome                  V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               an order on 28 October 1998, the operative part of which
Chambers of Penning & AssocieÂs, 31 Grand-Rue, v                    is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi) and Kingdom of Spain Ð
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1979/97 of 10 October 1997 fixing the estimated                  1. The application is dismissed.
production of olive oil and the amount of the unit
production aid that may be paid in advance for the
1996/97 marketing year (OJ L 278, 11.10.1997, p. 12) Ð
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed              2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, and V. Tiili and P.
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
23 October 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:


10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/9
       Removal from the register of Case C-12/96 (1)              removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (reference for a
                         (98/C 312/19)                            preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin): VR-
                                                                  Leasing GmbH v. Margit Bertram.
By order of 26 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
removal from the register of Case C-12/96: Portuguese
Republic v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-351/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/23)
                                                                  By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-39/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/20)                            removal from the register of Case C-351/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Court of             Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-39/98: Commission of          (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
the European Communities v. Silena SpA.
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/24)
      Removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (1)              By order of 13 July 1998 the President of the Court of
                         (98/C 312/21)                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (reference for
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of             a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Bre-
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               scia): Criminal proceedings against Riccardo Piccaluga.
removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (reference for
a preliminiary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Ente         (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Genova v. Ministero
delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-297/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/25)
                                                                  By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/22)                            removal from the register of Case C-297/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Case C-74/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe
   (Case C-74/16)
   (2016/C 145/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania

      Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Getafe

      Question referred

   Is the exemption of the Catholic Church from the Tax on Constructions, Installations and Works in respect of work to buildings intended to be used for economic activities that do not have a strictly religious purpose contrary to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


title: Case C-313/00 P: Appeal brought on 18 August 2000 by Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander AG, Una Film "City Revue" GmbH, Alma Media Group Advertising SA & Co. Partnership and Others, Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA, supported by Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV, and European Parliament and Council of the European Union, supported by Republic of Finland, Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and French Republic

text:
C 302/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
—     declare inadmissible, alternatively unfounded, the appli-          Appeal brought on 18 August 2000 by Zino Davidoff SA
      cation in Case T-117/98;                                           and Davidoff & Cie SA against the judgment delivered on
                                                                         27 June 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
—     order the respondents to pay the costs of the present              Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
      proceedings and those of the proceedings before the                T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander
      Court of First Instance.                                           AG, Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH, Alma Media Group
                                                                         Advertising SA & Co. Partnership and Others, Zino
                                                                         Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA, supported by
                                                                         Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV, and European Parliament
                                                                         and Council of the European Union, supported by Repub-
The first plea alleges infringement by the Court of First Instance       lic of Finland, Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
of the criteria governing the admissibility of the action in Case
                                                                                and French Republic
T-117/98. The measure which, it is claimed, the Commission
should have adopted, namely a regulation increasing the
Community quota for imports of bananas from third countries
or ACP countries, would necessarily have been a measure of                                      (Case C-313/00 P)
general, abstract application which could not have been
regarded as being of individual concern to the respondents.
                                                                                (2000/C 302/35)
The second plea alleges infringement of two of the conditions
governing the applicability of Regulation No 404/93 (1):
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by
      The first part of the plea concerns the first condition laid       the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities in Joined Cases T-172/98 and
      down by Article 30, namely that the difficulties facing an
                                                                         T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander AG, Una Film
      operator must result from the transition from the old
      national regime to the new Community regime. The                   ‘City Revue’ GmbH, Alma Media Group Advertising SA & Co.
                                                                         Partnership and Others, Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff &
      judgment infringed Community law, inasmuch as it did
                                                                         Cie SA, supported by Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane
      not contain any analysis of the specific effects on the
      position of an applicant under the old regime which was            Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV, and European
                                                                         Parliament and Council of the European Union, supported by
      aimed at establishing whether the national regime would
                                                                         Republic of Finland, Commission of the European Communi-
      have guaranteed a solution to the difficulties facing such
      an applicant.                                                      ties, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                         and French Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                         of the European Communities on 18 August 2000 by Zino
      The second part concerns the criterion of the existence of         Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA, represented by Professor
      ‘difficulties threatening the existence of the undertaking’.       Rolf Wägenbaur, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
      The Court of First Instance expressly ruled that that              in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
      criterion was not a condition necessary for the application        8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, B.P. 39, L-2010 Luxembourg.
      of Article 30, thereby violating the Community case-law
      in force, as observed by the Commission.
                                                                         The appellants claims that the Court should:
The third plea alleges infringement of one of the criteria
governing the applicability of Article 16(3) of Regulation
No 404/93, namely the need for the existence of difficulties in          1.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
supplying the Community. By declaring that ‘there is no need                   27 June 2000, in so far as it relates to the applicants and
for the applicants to prove the existence of an actual shortage                appellants, and reject the plea of inadmissibility;
of supplies to the Community market; instead, it is enough for
them to show that there is a risk of a shortage of supplies’, the
Court of First Instance contravened the letter and the spirit of
                                                                         2.    Consequently, declare the application of the applicants
the article in question, as interpreted by Community case-law
                                                                               and appellants admissible;
up until the present time. Moreover, the Court of First Instance
committed an error of law by maintaining, without providing
any reasons, that, where supplies to the Italian market alone
are affected, that must automatically affect supplies to the             3.    Uphold the application and consequently annul Directive
Community, thereby isolating a part of the Community                           98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
market.                                                                        of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
                                                                               States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of
                                                                               tobacco products (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 9), at least in so far
(1) OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                               as it prohibits or hinders sponsorship and advertising
                                                                               relating to brand names which were used before 30 July
                                                                               1998 for the advertising of products other than tobacco
                                                                               products;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/19
4.    In so far as necessary, remit the case to the Court of First         2)   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
      Instance for the procedure to be continued;
                                                                                (a)   Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of
5.    Order the defendants and respondents to bear the costs                          22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85 (3) of
      of the proceedings.                                                             the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing
                                                                                agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) also generally
                                                                                applicable to agreements of the kind described in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                       Question 1?
—     Misinterpretation of the concept of ‘direct concern’ within               (b) Is that regulation also applicable if, prior to onward
      the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC:                          selling, the roast coffee purchased is further proces-
      The contested judgment wrongly states that a directive is                       sed for sale as a coffee drink?
      not, before the adoption of national measures and
      independently of them, such as to affect directly the legal          3)   If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
      situation of economic operators. With respect to the
      fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, what matters is                       Is Article 3(d) of Regulation No 1984/83 to be construed
      merely whether the directive as such has a direct effect                  as meaning that agreements of the kind described in
      on the legal situation of an undertaking (without waiting                 Question 1, under which it is the contracting parties’
      until it is transposed by the Member States).                             estimation that the total sales quantity will be supplied
                                                                                within a period of less than five years, are also covered by
—     Incorrect assessment of the effects of the directive on the               the exemption under the regulation or is that the
      appellants’ situation, and hence inadequate reasoning in                  case only if there are also objective grounds for such
      the contested judgment: Directive 98/43 as such already                   expectations?
      constitutes a process which amounts to an expropriation
      (the possibility of advertising for the existing brand               4)   Is Article 85(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted
      ceases, so that its value for diversification products falls              as meaning that an agreement of the kind described in
      to zero). This affects the appellants’ legal situation, not               Question 1 is also invalid inasmuch as, in the event of
      merely their ‘factual situation’.                                         premature termination of the agreement, it provides for
                                                                                repayment of a rebate by the seller paid to the purchaser
                                                                                on commencement of the agreement determined by
                                                                                reference to total contractually agreed sales, and do the
                                                                                aforementioned provisions require that there should be
                                                                                no claim for repayment under that head?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Republic of Austria by order of that court of
11 May 2000 in the case of Kraft Jacobs Suchard Öster-
reich GesmbH against 1. Eduard Mitsche, 2. Maria Mits-
                        che, 3. Peter Roman                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
                                                                           nanzhof, by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the
                          (Case C-314/00)                                  case of Rudolf Maierhofer against Finanzamt Augsburg-
                                                                                Land
                          (2000/C 302/36)
                                                                                (Case C-315/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                                           (2000/C 302/37)
(Supreme Court), Republic of Austria, of 11 May 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 21 August 2000, for a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
preliminary ruling in the case of Kraft Jacobs Suchard Öster-             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
reich GesmbH against 1. Eduard Mitsche, 2. Maria Mitsche,                  (Federal Finance Court), of 25 May 2000, received at the Court
3. Peter Roman on the following questions:                                 Registry on 21 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           case of Rudolf Maierhofer against Finanzamt Augsburg-Land
1)    Is Article 85(1) (now Article 81(1) EC) of the EC Treaty             on the following questions:
      also applicable to purchasing agreements under which,
      over a period of several years, the goods agreed to be               1.   Does the term ‘letting of immovable property’ in
      purchased are to be called down and paid for by the                       Article 133(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) cover the pro-
      purchaser at current ‘list price’, albeit there is a stipulation          vision for consideration of a building constructed from
      for delivery of minimum annual quantities in line with                    prefabricated components which is to be removed follow-
      the buyer’s overall requirements, subject to a specified                  ing the termination of the contract and may be re-used
      permissible variation?                                                    on another site?


title: Case C-291/14 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Faci SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European tin stabilisers and epoxidised soya bean oil and esters markets — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Principle of effective judicial protection — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/8

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Faci SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-291/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 181 - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European tin stabilisers and epoxidised soya bean oil and esters markets - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Principle of effective judicial protection - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 320/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Faci SpA (represented by: S. Piccardo, avvocato, and S. Crosby, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, J. Norris-Usher and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Faci SpA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-88/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Graphic Procédé v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Reprographics activities — Concepts of supply of goods and supply of services — Distinguishing criteria)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Graphic Procédé v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique
   (Case C-88/09) (1)

   (Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Reprographics activities - Concepts of ‘supply of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ - Distinguishing criteria)
   2010/C 80/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Graphic Procédé

      Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 5(1) and 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Reprographics — Criteria to take into account in order to distinguish a supply of services from a provision of services for the purposes of the Sixth Directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that reprographics activities have the characteristics of a supply of goods to the extent that they are limited to mere reproduction of documents on materials, where the right to dispose of them has been transferred from the reprographer to the customer who ordered the copies of the original. Such activities must be classified however as a ‘supply of services’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388, where it is clear that they involve additional services liable, having regard to the importance of those services for the recipient, the time necessary to perform them, the processing required by the original documents and the proportion of the total cost that those services represent, to be predominant in relation to the supply of goods, such that they constitute an aim in themselves for the recipient thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case C-395/99: Action brought on 12 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
4.12.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/29
The applicant claims that the Court, rejecting all contrary            The applicant claims that the Court should:
applications, objections or inferences, should:
                                                                       1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    obligations under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
    1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), in that it
    has omitted to adopt the measures necessary in order to:               (a) Council Directive 96/51/EC (1) of 23 July 1996
                                                                                amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives
    — apply the provisions of that directive to all contracts                   in feedingstuffs;
         concluded between consumers and sellers or suppliers;
                                                                           (b) Directive 96/93/EC (2) of 17 December 1996 on the
    — transpose the third sentence of Article 5 of that                         certification of animals and animal products;
         directive;
    — transpose in its entirety Article 6(2) of that directive;            or in any event by failing to communicate such provisions,
                                                                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           the Treaty and those directives;
    — transpose in its entirety Article 7(3) of that directive;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Italian legislation transposing
Directive 93/13/EEC does not fulfil all the requirements of that       Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive. In particular, the Commission asserts that the Italian      directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Republic has committed the following infringements:                    each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                                                                       required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired without the Italian
— the scope of application of the national legislation is more         Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
    restricted than that of the directive;                             in order to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                       Commission’s application.
— the third sentence of Article 5 of the directive has not been
    transposed;
— Articles 6(2) and 7(3) of the directive have not been                (1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 39.
    transposed in their entirety.                                      (2) OJ 1997 L 13, p. 18.
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-336/98 (1)
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                                        (1999/C 352/49)
                         (Case C-395/99)                               By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case-336/98 (reference for a preliminary
                         (1999/C 352/48)                               ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la
                                                                       Lombardia): Agenzia R di Recapito Srl v Poste Italiane SpA
                                                                       and Rinaldi Angenzia di Recapito Srl.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 October
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case F-25/16: Action brought on 18 May 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/52

         Action brought on 18 May 2016 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-25/16)
   (2016/C 251/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority dated 7 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 under the 2013 promotion procedure and an application for damages.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 7 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 under the 2013 promotion procedure;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 15 000;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases C-80/11 and C-142/11: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság and the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mahagében kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11) and Péter Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11) (Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Conditions governing the exercise of that right — Article 273 — National measures to combat fraud — Practice of the national tax authorities — Refusal of the right to deduct in the event of improper conduct on the part of the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods or services in respect of which the exercise of that right is sought — Burden of proof — Obligation of the taxable person to satisfy himself as to the propriety of the conduct of the issuer of that invoice and to provide proof thereof)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/5

         Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság and the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mahagében kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11) and Péter Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11)
   (Joined Cases C-80/11 and C-142/11) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Conditions governing the exercise of that right - Article 273 - National measures to combat fraud - Practice of the national tax authorities - Refusal of the right to deduct in the event of improper conduct on the part of the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods or services in respect of which the exercise of that right is sought - Burden of proof - Obligation of the taxable person to satisfy himself as to the propriety of the conduct of the issuer of that invoice and to provide proof thereof)
   2012/C 250/08
   Language of the cases: Hungarian

      Referring courts

   Baranya Megyei Bíróság, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mahagében kft (C-80/11), Péter Dávid (C-142/11)

      Defendants: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11), Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Conditions for exercising the right to deduct input tax according to the practice of the national tax authorities — Obligation of the taxable person to prove that the transaction listed on the invoice actually occurred and that the company issuing the invoice acted properly

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a), 220(1) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax which he is liable to pay, the amount of the value added tax due or paid in respect of the services supplied to him, on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly, without that authority establishing, on the basis of objective evidence, that the taxable person concerned knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoice or by another trader acting earlier in the chain of supply.

               2.

               Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses the right to deduct on the ground that the taxable person did not satisfy himself that the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods in respect of which the exercise of the right to deduct is sought had the status of a taxable person, that he was in possession of the goods in question and was in a position to supply them, and that he had satisfied his obligations as regards declaration and payment of value added tax, or on the ground that, in addition to that invoice, that taxable person is not in possession of other documents capable of demonstrating that those conditions were fulfilled, although the substantive and formal conditions laid down by Directive 2006/112 for exercising the right to deduct were fulfilled and the taxable person is not in possession of any material justifying the suspicion that irregularities or fraud have been committed within that invoice issuer’s sphere of activity.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.