title: Case T-78/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Álvarez v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Concept of undertaking — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Álvarez v Commission
   (Case T-78/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concept of undertaking - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of innocence)
   2012/C 6/17
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Armando Álvarez, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez and A. García Castillo, then by E. Garayar Gutiérrez, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. Ruixó Claramunt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Armando Álvarez, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case C-410/00: Action brought on 9 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
C 28/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission is inconsistent in its criteria in this regard,
                                                                                since in paragraph 35 of the contested decision it
                                                                                describes the aid as aid to investment while, on the other
                                                                                hand, in paragraph 38 it describes it as operating aid.
—     annul the Commission decision of 26 July 2000(1); and
                                                                          (1) Commission Decision C(2000) 2465 Final concerning the system
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                       of aid granted by Spain for the purchase of industrial vehicles by
                                                                              means of the ‘Convenio de Colaboración’ of 26 February 1997
                                                                              between the Ministerio de Industria y Energı́a and the Instituto de
                                                                              Crédito Official.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Indeterminate nature of the contested decision: delimi-
      tation of the benefits covered respectively by Article 1
      (incompatible aid) and Article 2 (aid incompatible with
                                                                          Action brought on 9 November 2000 by the Commission
      the common market and, accordingly, to be recovered) is
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
      impossible. The whole category of undertakings referred
                                                                                Sweden
      to in Article 1 and, in particular, those which are caught
      by the definition of ‘operating at local or regional level
      does not exist as a concept under Spanish law’.                                                (Case C-410/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/25)
—     Non-selective aid: the measures contained in the Convenio
      do not favour certain undertakings or productions, since
      the subsidies which it envisages are not aimed at a defined         An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
      set of recipients but at all possible beneficiaries in general.     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      The fact of requiring that beneficiaries should be natural          9 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
      persons or small or medium-sized enterprises constitutes            Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius and Christina
      an objective condition requiring that they be in an                 Tufvesson, Legal Advisers in the Commission’s Legal Service,
      objectively similar situation.                                      acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of that service,
                                                                          Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
—     Absence of discrimination: the implementing rules for
      the Convenio do not require that the vehicle which must             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      be withdrawn from circulation should belong to the
      beneficiary of the subsidy — the vehicle may belong to a            1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      third party with which the beneficiary may have entered                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      into an agreement to that end. Thus, there is no distortion               Council Directive 96/48/EC (1) of 23 July 1996 on the
      of competition to the detriment of those hauliers not                     interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
      established in Spain.                                                     system, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that directive,
—     Competition is not distorted: the impact at Community               2.    order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.
      level of the system of aid provided for by the Convenio
      on competition in transport is entirely insignificant —
      the requirements laid down in Article 87(1) EC are not
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
      met.
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
—     Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC: in the view of the             relied on in Case C-407/00 (2); the period prescribed for
      Kingdom of Spain, concern for the environment and                   transposition of the directive expired on 8 April 1999.
      traffic safety justify application in the present case of
      Article 87(3)(c), since it is clear that the measures
      proposed in those two sectors will have a positive impact,          (1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
                                                                          (2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
      without resulting in an increase in capacity. The measures
      provided for in the Convenio cannot be characterised as
      operating aid but rather as aid for investment linked to
      the restructuring of the pool of industrial vehicles. The


title: Case C-56/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2007 — Ruth Volgger, Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH v Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and Autonomous Province of Bolzano

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2007 — Ruth Volgger, Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH v Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and Autonomous Province of Bolzano
   (Case C-56/07)
   (2007/C 95/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Bozen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ruth Volgger, Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH

      Defendants: Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and Autonomous Province of Bolzano
   Question referred
   Are national provisions (Articles 2 and 8 of Decree-Law No 61/2000) which impose an obligation on employers to send a copy of part-time employment contracts within 30 days of their conclusion to the competent provincial department of the Labour Inspectorate, which imposes a fine of EUR 15 per employee concerned and per day of delay for failure to do so, and which do not set an upper limit for the administrative fine, compatible with Community law provisions and Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 (1)?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.


title: Case C-32/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Badajoz, Spain) lodged on 23 January 2012 — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba S.A., Automóviles Citroen España S.A.

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Badajoz, Spain) lodged on 23 January 2012 — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba S.A., Automóviles Citroen España S.A.
   (Case C-32/12)
   2012/C 98/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia, Badajoz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Soledad Duarte Hueros

      Defendant: Autociba S.A., Automóviles Citroen-2 España S.A.

      Question referred

   If a consumer, after failing to have the product brought into conformity — because, despite repeated requests, repair has not been carried out — seeks in legal proceedings only rescission of the contract, and such rescission is not available because the lack of conformity is minor, may the court of its own motion grant the consumer an appropriate price reduction?


title: Case C-87/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 February 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Other party: X

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 February 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Other party: X
   (Case C-87/13)
   2013/C 141/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: X

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law, in particular the rules on freedom of establishment and on free movement of capital, preclude a resident of Belgium who, at his request, is taxed in the Netherlands as a resident and who has incurred costs in respect of a castle, used by him as his own home, which is located in Belgium and is designated there as a legally protected monument and village conservation area, from deducting those costs in the Netherlands for income tax purposes on the grounds that the castle is not registered as a protected monument in the Netherlands?

               2.

               To what extent is it important in that regard whether the person concerned may deduct those costs for income tax purposes in his country of residence, Belgium, from his current or future investment income by opting for a system of graduated taxation of that income?


title: Case T-458/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Wuppermann (TEK) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the Community word mark TEK — Subject-matter of the proceedings — Observance of the rights of the defence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/13

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Wuppermann (TEK)
   (Case T-458/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the Community word mark TEK - Subject-matter of the proceedings - Observance of the rights of the defence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 8/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Tegometall International AG (Lengwil-Oberhofen, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the Court of First Instance: Wuppermann AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Huisken, and subsequently by I. Friedhoff, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 October 2005 (Case R 1063/2004-2), as rectified on 16 November 2005, relating to invalidity proceedings between Wuppermann AG and Tegometall International AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 1998 in Case C-422/97 P: Société Anonyme de Traverses en Béton Armé (Sateba) v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Public supply contracts - Closure of the file concerning a complaint regarding the conduct of the contracting authority)

text:
10.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 312/3
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  French law, established in Paris, represented by Jacques
                       (Third Chamber)                               Manseau, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10
                        of 16 July 1998                              Rue Mathias Hardt, Ð appeal against the order of the
in Case C-252/97 P: N v. Commission of the European                  Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 September
                        Communities (1)                              1997 in Case T-83/97 Sateba v. Commission [1997] ECR
                                                                     II-1523, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
 (Appeal Ð Disciplinary measures Ð Removal from post)                party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
                         (98/C 312/05)                               European Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
               (Language of the case: French)                        President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and K. M.
                                                                     Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                     Registrar, has made an order on 17 July 1998, the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       operative part of which is as follows:
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
In Case C-252/97 P: N, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Xavier MagneÂe, of the Brussels Bar, with an address              2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the present
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis                       proceedings.
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim Ð appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European              (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 1997 in Case
T-273/94 N v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-289, seeking
to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
proceedings being the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, assisted by Denis
Waelbroeck) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by the European
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, J. C.                 Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 May
Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.              1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made              of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between
an order on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is                     Roland Bieber and the European Parliament
as follows:                                                                                (Case C-284/98 P)
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                                  (98/C 312/07)
2. The applicant is to pay the costs.                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 May
                                                                     1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.                                             of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between
                                                                     Roland Bieber and the European Parliament was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 24 July 1998 by the European Parliament, represented
                                                                     by JoseÂ-Luis Rufas Quintana and Evelyn Waldherr, acting
                                                                     as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  the Registry of the General Secretariat of the European
                                                                     Parliament, Tower Building.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                        of 17 July 1998                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
in Case C-422/97 P: SocieÂteÂ Anonyme de Traverses en
BeÂton ArmeÂ (Sateba) v. Commission of the European                  Ð set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
                        Communities (1)                                  Instance of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96 Bieber v.
                                                                         Parliament (1),
(Appeal Ð Public supply contracts Ð Closure of the file
concerning a complaint regarding the conduct of the
                    contracting authority)                           Ð alternatively, annul points 2, 3 and 6 of the operative
                                                                         part of that judgment so as to reduce the period in
                         (98/C 312/06)                                   respect of which the European Parliament is ordered
                                                                         to compensate the respondent to the period from
               (Language of the case: French)                            15 June 1995 to 13 December 1995,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð grand the form of order sought by the European
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Parliament in the proceedings at first instance, and
In Case C-422/97 P: SocieÂteÂ Anonyme de Traverses en                Ð make a ruling as to costs in accordance with the
BeÂton ArmeÂ (Sateba), a company incorporated under                      applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure.


title: Case T-37/12: Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — López Cabré (TEEN VOGUE)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/30

         Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — López Cabré (TEEN VOGUE)
   (Case T-37/12)
   2012/C 73/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo López Cabré (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2011 in case R 1763/2010-4, insofar as it relates to the opposition based on the earlier mark; and

               —

               Order the opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEEN VOGUE’, for among others goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 5265517

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 496371 of the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 18; Spanish trade mark registration No 2153619 of the figurative mark ‘VOGUE moda en lluvia’, for goods in class 18; Community trade mark registration No 2082287 of the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 18

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 43(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and/or of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as well as infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding that the opponent’s evidence ‘taken as a whole’ was sufficient to prove use of the earlier mark, and as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s mark and the opposed mark.


title: Case C-310/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair commercial practices — Directive 2005/29/EC — Articles 5 and 7 — Combined offer — Sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software — Material information relating to the price — Misleading omission — Consumer unable to obtain the same model of computer not equipped with software)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA
   (Case C-310/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Articles 5 and 7 - Combined offer - Sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software - Material information relating to the price - Misleading omission - Consumer unable to obtain the same model of computer not equipped with software))
   (2016/C 402/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vincent Deroo-Blanquart

      Defendant: Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A commercial practice consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software without any option for the consumer to purchase the same model of computer not equipped with pre-installed software does not in itself constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), unless such a practice is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product, a matter which is for the national court to determine by taking account of the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings.

               2.

               In the context of a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software, the failure to indicate the price of each of those items of pre-installed software does not constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(4)(a) and Article 7 of Directive 2005/29.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-54/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Spain v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Aid for the operational programme falling within Objective 1 (2000-2006) concerning the region of Andalucía (Spain) — Article 39(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Three-month period — Directive 93/36/EEC — Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-54/11) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Aid for the operational programme falling within Objective 1 (2000-2006) concerning the region of Andalucía (Spain) - Article 39(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Three-month period - Directive 93/36/EEC - Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice)
   2013/C 55/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently by S. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, and finally by A. Rubio González and N. Díaz Abad, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7700 final of 16 November 2010 reducing the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Objective 1 integrated operational programme for Andalucía (2000-2006), in so far as it imposes a financial correction of 100 % on the ERDF-financed expenditure for contracts no 2075/2003 and no 2120/2005.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case C-469/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Protection of animals during transport — Long journeys — Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) — Journey times and animal resting periods during transport — Transport of cattle — Concept of ‘rest period of at least one hour’ — Possibility of interrupting the transport several times — Article 22 — Delays during transport — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 — Export refunds — Requirements of the welfare of live bovine animals during transport — Regulation No 817/2010 — Article 2(2) to (4) of Regulation No 817/2010 — Official veterinarian at the exit point — Report and entry on the document evidencing the exit of the animals from the customs territory of the European Union regarding compliance or non-compliance with the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 — Unsatisfactory result of the checks carried out — Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 817/2010 — Whether or not that entry is binding on the national authority competent for the export refund)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-469/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport - Long journeys - Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) - Journey times and animal resting periods during transport - Transport of cattle - Concept of ‘rest period of at least one hour’ - Possibility of interrupting the transport several times - Article 22 - Delays during transport - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 - Export refunds - Requirements of the welfare of live bovine animals during transport - Regulation No 817/2010 - Article 2(2) to (4) of Regulation No 817/2010 - Official veterinarian at the exit point - Report and entry on the document evidencing the exit of the animals from the customs territory of the European Union regarding compliance or non-compliance with the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 - Unsatisfactory result of the checks carried out - Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 817/2010 - Whether or not that entry is binding on the national authority competent for the export refund))
   (2016/C 350/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Masterrind GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the transport by road of the animals belonging to the species referred to, in particular the bovine species except calves, first, the rest period between the periods of movement may, in principle, be longer than one hour. However, that length of time, if it exceeds one hour, must not be such that, in the specific conditions in which that rest and the transport occur together, it constitutes a risk of injury or undue suffering for the transported animals. Furthermore, the combined journey time and resting periods, as provided for under point 1.4(d) of that chapter, must not exceed 29 hours, subject to the possibility of extending those periods by 2 hours in the interests of the animals, in accordance with point 1.8 of that chapter and without prejudice to the application of Article 22 of that regulation in the event of unforeseeable circumstances. Second, the periods of movement of a maximum of 14 hours may each include 1 or more stop periods. Those break periods must be in addition to the periods of movement that count towards the overall period of movement of a maximum of 14 hours to which they belong.

               2.

               Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport must be interpreted as meaning that the authority competent for the payment of export refunds for bovine animals is not bound by the entry made by the official veterinarian at the exit point on the document constituting evidence of exit from the customs territory of the European Union of the animals concerned, according to which the applicable provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 were not adhered to in the context of the transport of those animals, in relation to all or some of those animals.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2000 in Case T-67/99: K v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Duty of the administration to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Scope — Limits)

text:
C 259/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.9.2000
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan) — appli-                    damage — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
cation for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                     composed of: J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and
No 2380/98 of 3 November 1998 amending Council Regu-                        A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
lation (EC) No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which
duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s             it:
Republic of China (OJ 1998 L 296, p. 1) — the Court (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili, Presi-               1.    Dismisses the action;
dent, P. Lindh, R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and P. Mengoz-
zi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
has given a judgment on 29 June 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation No 2380/98 of                  (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
      3 November 1998 amending Council Regulation (EC)
      No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
      imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s Republic
      of China in so far as the Council did not abide by all the
      consequences of the review findings relating to the applicant’s
      imports of Lucci Creation’s products;
2.    Orders that the amendment of the rates of duty shall remain in            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      force until the competent institutions have adopted the measures
      necessary to comply with this judgment;                                                         of 27 June 2000
3.    Orders the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the
      applicant;                                                            in Case T-67/99: K v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (Officials — Duty of the administration to provide assist-
                                                                            ance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Scope —
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.99.                                                                                Limits)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 In Case T-67/99: K, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                            E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                           of 13 July 2000                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                            Rheinsheim, v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-24/99: Claudio d’Aloya v Council of the Euro-                     (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application
                           pean Union (1)                                   for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 May 1998
                                                                            rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the applicant
                                                                            pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials of
(Officials — Promotion — Action for annulment — Action                      the European Communities, seeking the assumption by the
                            for damages)                                    defendant of responsibility for payment of the costs of criminal
                                                                            proceedings brought in response to the submission of a
                          (2000/C 259/29)                                   complaint to the Brussels Public Prosecutor’s office — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Gar-
                                                                            cı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
                                                                            J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which it:
In Case T-24/99: Claudio d’Aloya, an official of the Council of             1.    Dismisses the action;
the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
W. Viscardini Donà and G. Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an                   2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Council of the European
Union (Agents: G. Maganza and M. Bauer) — application, first,               (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
for annulment of two decisions adopted by the Council in the
context of the procedure for filling a grade A 2 post in its
Legal Service and, second, for compensation for non-material


title: Case T-193/15: Action brought on 21 April 2015 — Bodegas Williams & Humbert v OHIM — Central Hisumer (Botanic Williams & Humbert)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/43

         Action brought on 21 April 2015 — Bodegas Williams & Humbert v OHIM — Central Hisumer (Botanic Williams & Humbert)
   (Case T-193/15)
   (2015/C 198/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Williams & Humbert, SA (Cádiz, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Central Hisumer, SL (Orihuela, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in blue, grey, white and black containing the word elements ‘Botanic Williams & Humbert’ — Application for registration No 11 184 819

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 594/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare as not being in accordance with Regulation EC No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, the decision of 9 December 2010 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, in Case R 594/2014-4, dismissing the administrative appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013, made in opposition proceedings No B 2 128 026, and thereby refusing registration of Community Trademark No 11.184.819 BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN, composite mark in Class 33;

               —

               allow registration of the composite Community trade mark No 11.184.819 BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN, in Class 33, as the prohibition on registration provided for in Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not apply;

               —

               order OHIM, and if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


1.5.1999               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 121/15
       Removal from the register of Case C-373/96 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-220/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/31)                                                      (1999/C 121/34)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-373/96 (reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-220/97: Commission of the
ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Ministero delle Finanze         European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany.
v. Merkur Chemical Srl.
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-98/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/32)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-394/98 (1)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of                                    (1999/C 121/35)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal
from the register of Case C-98/97 (reference for a preliminary        By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Torino): CIF Srl v.      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Ministero delle Finanze.                                              from the register of Case C-394/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 1, 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-72/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/33)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-395/98 (1)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal
from the register of Case C-72/98 (reference for a preliminary                               (1999/C 121/36)
ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lyon): SA
Gougenheim Imprimerie Publicité v. Directeur des Services             By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Fiscaux du Rhône.                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 151, 16.5.1998.                                              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 April 2000 in Case C-356/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Adjudicator): Arben Kaba v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Free movement of workers — Social advantage — Right of the spouse of a migrant worker to obtain leave to remain indefinitely in the territory of a Member State)

text:
C 176/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.6.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 11 April 2000
                                                                                of 11 April 2000
in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance
de Namur): Christelle Deliège v Ligue Francophone de                        in Case C-356/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      Judo et Disciplines Associées ASBL and Others (1)                     the Immigration Adjudicator): Arben Kaba v Secretary of
                                                                                State for the Home Department (1)
(Freedom to provide services — Competition rules applicable
to undertakings — Judokas — Sports rules providing for
                                                                            (Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Free movement of workers
national quotas and national federations’ selection pro-
                                                                            — Social advantage — Right of the spouse of a migrant
    cedures for participation in international tournaments)
                                                                            worker to obtain leave to remain indefinitely in the territory
                                                                                of a Member State)
                           (2000/C 176/02)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/03)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: English)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-51/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                In Case C-356/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Première Instance de                     the EC Treaty from the Immigration Adjudicator, United
Namur, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
pending before that court between Christelle Deliège and Ligue              before that court between Arben Kaba and Secretary of State
Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées ASBL, Ligue                    for the Home Department — on the interpretation of Article
Belge de Judo ASBL, Union Européenne de Judo (C-51/96) and                  7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
between Christelle Deliège and Ligue Francophone de Judo et                 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within
Disciplines Associées ASBL, Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL, François              the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475)
Pacquée (C-191/97) — on the interpretation of Articles 59 of                — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC), 60, 66,                J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón,
85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC, 55 EC, 81 EC                Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
and 82 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,              G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and                      A. La Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puisso-            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
chet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),                     on 11 April 2000, in which it has ruled:
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 April
2000, in which it has ruled:                                                Legislation of a Member State which requires spouses of migrant
                                                                            workers who are nationals of other Member States to have resided in
                                                                            the territory of that Member State for four years before they become
A rule requiring professional or semi-professional athletes or persons
                                                                            entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain and to have their
aspiring to take part in a professional or semi-professional activity to
                                                                            applications considered, but which requires residence of only 12
have been authorised or selected by their federation in order to be able
                                                                            months for the spouses of persons who are settled in that territory,
to participate in a high-level international sports competition, which
                                                                            does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 7(2) of
does not involve national teams competing against each other, does
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
not in itself, as long as it derives from a need inherent in the
                                                                            on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.
organisation of such a competition, constitute a restriction on the
freedom to provide services prohibited by Article 59 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC).
                                                                            (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996; OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.


title: Case C-400/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — B.A.S. Trucks BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Subheading 8704 10 — Vehicle designed for use on construction sites for the transport and unloading of materials and also for use on the highway)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — B.A.S. Trucks BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-400/05) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Subheading 8704 10 - Vehicle designed for use on construction sites for the transport and unloading of materials and also for use on the highway)
   (2007/C 42/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: B.A.S. Trucks BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Tariff classification of a vehicle designed for use on construction sites for the transport and unloading of materials and also for use on the highway — Whether or not it should be classified under CN subheading 8704 10 as a ‘dumper designed for off-highway use’
   Operative part of the judgment
   Subheading 8704 10 of the combined nomenclature, in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers dumpers within the meaning of that subheading which are designed specifically and primarily for use off paved, public roads. The fact that dumper trucks have distinctive characteristics which enable them to be driven, incidentally, on paved, public roads does not preclude their classification as dumpers within the meaning of that subheading.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 26 November 1998 in the case of Sutterlüty Gesellschaft mbH & Co against the Vorarlberg Landesregierung, with the following parties joined in the proceedings: the town of Dornbirn, the municipality of Bludesch, the municipality of Rankweil and the municipality of Lochau (Case C-460/98)

text:
C 71/4                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
     certification was annulled, this could only give rise to        on 15 December 1998 by the Commission of the
     the legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant         European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
     that the Commission would endorse the DAFSE's                   Goulousis, Legal Adviser, and Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
     certification                                                   Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð Misappraisal of the facts
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on        The Commission claims that the Court should:
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 20.10.1983, p. 1).
(2) Case T-85/94 Branco v Commission [1995] ECR II-45.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force and to
                                                                         communicate to the Commission within the time-limit
                                                                         laid down the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                         provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
                                                                         Directive 96/97/EC (1) of 20 December 1996 amending
                                                                         Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the
                                                                         principle of equal treatment for men and women in
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen
                                                                         occupational social security schemes, the Hellenic
Käräjäoikeus by judgment of that court of 31 March 1998
                                                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
in the case of Finnish State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets
                                                                         EC Treaty;
                            and Others
                        (Case C-455/98)
                         (1999/C 71/06)                              Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities by a judgment of the Tampereen
Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 31 March 1998,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 December
                                                                     The Member States are required by the binding character
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finnish                of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets and Others on the               the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose
following question:
                                                                     directives into national law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     laid down for that purpose and to communicate those
                                                                     measures immediately to the Commission. That period
Are the European Community tax directives Council                    expired on 1 July 1997 without the Hellenic Republic
Directive 92/12/EEC (1), Council Directive 92/83/EEC (2)             having communicated to the Commission the provisions
and Council Directive 77/388/EEC (3) and the customs                 transposing the directive at issue into national law.
code Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (4) to be
interpreted as meaning that the provisions concerning tax
liability and customs debts apply to the smuggling of                (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
liquor?
(1) OJ  L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ  L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
(3) OJ  L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(4) OJ  L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
                                                                     gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of
                                                                     26 November 1998 in the case of Sutterlüty Gesellschaft
                                                                     mbH & Co against the Vorarlberg Landesregierung,
                                                                     with the following parties joined in the proceedings: the
                                                                     town of Dornbirn, the municipality of Bludesch, the
Action brought on 15 December 1998 by the Commission                  municipality of Rankweil and the municipality of Lochau
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                                       (Case C-460/98)
                        (Case C-457/98)                                                      (1999/C 71/08)
                         (1999/C 71/07)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              gerichtshof, Vienna (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna)
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 71/5
of 26 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on              The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
17 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sutterlüty Gesellschaft mbH & Co v the Vorarlberg Lan-
desregierung, with the following parties joined in the              1) Set aside the contested judgment on the ground that it
proceedings: the town of Dornbirn, the municipality of                  is incorrect in law in that the principle requiring a
Bludesch, the market municipality of Rankweil and the                   prior hearing was misapplied, without prejudice to the
municipality of Lochau on the following question:                       part of the judgment which upheld in part
                                                                        Mediocurso's application in Case T-180/96;
In the event that the Court of Justice of the European
Communities answers the questions referred to it in the
order of 18 December 1997, Nos 97/16/0221 and 0021,                 2) Consequently, in view of the Commission's breach of
(Case C-437/97 (1)) at least partially in the affirmative, the          the same principle, annul Commission Decisions (C)
following further question is referred for a preliminary                1185 and (C) 1186, both of 14 August 1996, which
ruling:                                                                 were the subject of the proceedings in Cases T-180/96
                                                                        and T-181/96 respectively;
Is Section 82(2) of the Vorarlberg Abgabenverfahrens-
gesetz (Vorarlberg Law of Tax Procedure), which allows a            3) If it should reject the claims made in the foregoing
taxable person to correct a declaration made under                      paragraphs, set aside the contested judgment to the
Section 82(1) of that Law only if he does so within one                 extent to which it upholds the decisions adopted by
month of submitting the declaration, and also sets a                    the Commission, in both cases, which treat as
deadline of one month from the submission of the                        ineligible, in their entirety, both the expenditure
declaration for the taxable person to apply for the amount              relating to the remuneration paid to the teaching staff
of duty to be determined by notice of assessment altering               (sub-heading 14.3.1.a) and the expenditure relating to
the amount arrived at by the taxable person himself                     the VAT        chargeable on that remuneration
(except in cases where the requirements for reopening                   (sub-heading 14.3.13), this plea in annulment being
proceedings are met), incompatible with the case-law of                 based on:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(judgment in Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck, Van
Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgium [1995] ECR I-4599)                       Ð material inaccuracy of the findings of fact made by
and thus with the application of Community law, in                          the Court of First Instance;
particular the implementation of the procedure under
Article 177 of the Treaty?
                                                                        Ð error of law deriving from inconsistency of the
                                                                            grounds of the judgment and breach of the
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998, p. 6.
                                                                            principle of proportionality;
                                                                    4) Consequently, for the same reasons, annul
                                                                        Commission Decisions (C) 1185 and (C) 1186, both of
                                                                        14 August 1996, to the extent to which they treat as
Appeal brought on 17 December 1998 by Mediocurso Ð                      ineligible, in their entirety, both the expenditure
Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA against the                     relating to the remuneration paid to the teaching staff
judgment delivered on 15 September 1998 by the Third                    (sub-heading 14.3.1.a) and the expenditure relating to
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  the VAT        chargeable on that remuneration
Communities in Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96                       (sub-heading 14.3.13);
Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Lda v
        Commission of the European Communities
                      (Case C-462/98 P)                             5) Annul paragraph 4 of the operative part of the
                                                                        contested judgment to the extent to which it requires
                        (1999/C 71/09)                                  Mediocurso to pay its own costs in Case T-180/96;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September            6) Annul paragraph 5 of the operative part of the
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance                contested judgment to the extent to which it requires
of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/96                    Mediocurso to pay its own costs in Case T-181/96.
and T-181/96 Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino
Particular Lda v Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 17 December 1998 by                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA,
represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    Ð First, the applicant maintains that the Court of First
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                                   Instance erred in law in considering, on the basis of


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2001 in Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale di Costruzioni v ANAS — Ente nazionale per le strade, Società Italiana per Condotte d'Acqua SpA (C-285/99), and between Impresa Ing. Mantovani SpA and ANAS — Ente nazionale per le strade, Ditta Paolo Bregoli (C-286/99), intervener: Coopsette Soc. coop. arl (C-286/99) (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Award of contracts — Abnormally low tenders — Detailed rules for explanation and rejection applied in a Member State — Obligations of the awarding authority under Community law)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 84/7
the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parlia-              concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
ment of 28 October 1996 imposing on him the disciplinary                   public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — the Court
measure of downgrading, the other party to the proceedings                 (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the
being: European Parliament (Agent: H. Krück) — the Court,                  Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colner-               C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
ic, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),              V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  judgment on 27 November 2001, in which it has ruled:
27 November 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
2.    Orders Z to pay the costs.                                           concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                           works contracts must be interpreted as follows:
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                           —     it precludes a Member State’s legislation and administrative
                                                                                practice which allow the contracting authority to reject tenders
                                                                                offering a greater discount than the anomaly threshold as
                                                                                abnormally low, taking into account only those explanations of
                                                                                the prices proposed, covering at least 75 % of the basic contract
                                                                                value mentioned in the contract notice, which tenderers were
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           required to attach to their tender, without giving the tenderers
                                                                                the opportunity to argue their point of view, after the opening
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                         of the envelopes, on those elements of the prices proposed which
                                                                                gave rise to suspicions;
                      of 27 November 2001
                                                                           —     it also precludes a Member State’s legislation and administrative
in Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99 (reference for a
                                                                                practice which require the contracting authority to take into
preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa
                                                                                consideration, for the purposes of examining abnormally low
Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale di Costruzioni v
                                                                                tenders, only explanations based on the economy of the
ANAS — Ente nazionale per le strade, Società Italiana per
                                                                                construction method, technical solutions chosen, or exceptionally
Condotte d’Acqua SpA (C-285/99), and between Impresa
                                                                                favourable conditions available to the tenderer, but not expla-
Ing. Mantovani SpA and ANAS — Ente nazionale per
                                                                                nations relating to all those elements for which minimum values
le strade, Ditta Paolo Bregoli (C-286/99), intervener:
                                                                                are laid down by law, regulation or administrative provision or
            Coopsette Soc. coop. arl (C-286/99) (1)
                                                                                can be ascertained from official data;
(Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Award
of contracts — Abnormally low tenders — Detailed rules for
                                                                           —     however, provided all the requirements it imposes are otherwise
explanation and rejection applied in a Member State —
                                                                                complied with and the aims pursued by Directive 93/37 are
Obligations of the awarding authority under Community
                                                                                not defeated, it does not in principle preclude a Member State’s
                                 law)
                                                                                legislation and administrative practice which, in the matter of
                                                                                identifying and examining abnormally low tenders, first, require
                          (2002/C 84/12)                                         all tenderers, under threat of exclusion from participation in the
                                                                                contract, to accompany their tender with explanations of the
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                              prices proposed, covering at least 75 % of the basic value of
                                                                                that contract, and, second, apply a method of calculating the
                                                                                anomaly threshold based on the average of all the tenders
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           received for the tender procedure in question, so that tenderers
                   in the European Court Reports)                                are not in a position to know that threshold at the time they
                                                                                lodge their file; the result produced by applying that calculation
                                                                                method must, however, be capable of being reconsidered by the
In Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99: reference to the                          contracting authority.
Court under Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Impresa Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale
di Costruzioni v ANAS — Ente nazionale per le strade, Società              (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
Italiana per Condotte d’Acqua SpA (C-285/99), and between
Impresa Ing. Mantovani SpA and ANAS — Ente nazionale per
le strade, Ditta Paolo Bregoli (C-286/99), intervener: Coopsette
Soc. coop. arl (C-286/99) — on the interpretation of Article
30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993


title: Case F-102/06: Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Haelterman and Others v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/35

         Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Haelterman and Others v Commission
   (Case F-102/06)
   (2006/C 261/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Geert Haelterman (Ninove, Belgium) and Others (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the individual decisions rejecting the applicants' applications for the adoption by the Appointing Authority (AIPN) of transitional measures to guarantee, in connection with the 2005 and subsequent promotion procedures, equal treatment and their vested rights;

               —

               An order that the Commission of the European Communities pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on pleas in law identical to those pleaded in Case F-47/06. (1)

      (1)  OJEU C 154, 1.07.2006, p. 25.


title: Case C-664/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba
   (Case C-664/16)
   (2017/C 104/41)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan

      Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Directive 2006/112 (1) in general, and Articles 167, 168, 178, 179 and 273 in particular, and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, may a taxable person who satisfies the substantive requirements for the deduction of VAT exercise his right to deduct in a situation where, in a particular context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, he is unable to provide evidence, by way of invoices, of input tax for the supply of goods and provision of services?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, on a proper construction of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, is an indirect assessment method (assessment by means of a court-commissioned expert report), employed by an independent expert and based on the amount of work/labour involved in the construction of buildings as stated in the report, an acceptable and appropriate measure for determining the extent of the right to deduct in a situation where the supply of goods (building material) and the provision of services (labour relating to the construction of buildings) originate from taxable persons liable to VAT?

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


title: Case T-298/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (1000) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark 1000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (1000)
   (Case T-298/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark 1000 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 11/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2006 (Case R 447/2006-4), relating to the application for registration of the word mark 1000 as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-606/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-606/11)
   2012/C 65/05
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grattan plc

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

      Questions referred

   If the Court of Justice concludes that the answer to the Question 1 referred in the case of Littlewoods Retail Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Case C-591/10) is in the negative:

               1.

               Do the EU law principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence require the remedy for an overpayment of VAT in breach of EU law to be a single remedy for both the reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid and for the use value of the overpayment and/or interest?;

               2.

               In circumstances where there are alternative remedies under domestic law, is it a breach of the principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence for the remedy or remedies not to be in the statutory provisions governing the making of the principal reimbursement claims and the appeals from administrative decisions on those claims?; and

               3.

               Is it a breach of the principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence to require a claimant to pursue the principal reimbursement claim and the claim for simple interest in one set of proceedings before the Tax Tribunal and the balance of the remedy required by EU law in respect of the use value of the overpayment and/or interest in separate proceedings before the High Court?


title: Case F-127/07: Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Coto Moreno v Commission

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/57

         Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Coto Moreno v Commission
   (Case F-127/07)
   (2008/C 22/111)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Juana Maria Coto Moreno (Gaborone, Botswana) (represented by: K. Lemmens and C. Doutrelepont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 February 2007 by which the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/28/05 refused to include the applicant in the reserve list for that competition, and consequently:

                           —

                           award her damages and interest of EUR 25 000 as compensation for non-material loss;

                           —

                           award her damages to cover legal fees estimated at EUR 8 000 as shown in the attached document;

                           —

                           declare, principally, that the competent authorities must adopt all appropriate measures fairly to compensate for the disadvantage caused by the annulled measure, that is to say the inclusion of the applicant in the reserve list or

                           —

                           award the applicant, failing such inclusion, in the alternative, compensation by way of damages and interest for her material loss in the amount of EUR 384 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant participated in the EPSO/AD/28/05 competition. The competition selection board refused to include the applicant in the reserve list for that competition by decision of 12 February 2007, which the applicant seeks to have annulled.
   In support of her action, the applicant raises four pleas in law:
   The first plea alleges, principally, a manifest error of appraisal either alone or in conjunction with a failure to state reasons and/or breach of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti. The selection board, whose position in that regard is ambiguous, took the view that the applicant gave ‘sufficient’ answers which nevertheless had weak points. That was manifestly not the case, particularly as the applicant answered in accordance with the Commission rules.
   The second plea alleges, also principally, breach of the notice of competition and of the principle of equality either alone or in conjunction with compliance with the principle of reasonableness.
   The third plea, also principally, alleges breach of the duty to state reasons in that the applicant clearly asked the selection board why an answer which she gave in the oral test was considered incorrect or at least insufficient. The applicant has not received any response despite the duty to state reasons.
   Finally and in the alternative, the applicant alleges a manifest error of appraisal either alone or in conjunction with the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality. The mark awarded was, in addition, disproportionate in relation to the results (she was given the mark of 25/50) and is in breach of the principle of equality since the applicant was treated like any other candidate who gave answers considered sufficient, not only with regard to knowledge but also with regard to other criteria.


title: Action brought on 18 March 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-112/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 166/5
      acceptance in more than 50% of the trade circles                  Such a specific prohibition is contrary to Article 4 of
      concerned is required and is to be demonstrated,                  Directive    90/396/EEC       inasmuch     as it constitutes an
      compatible with that provision ?                                  obstacle to the putting into service of appliances to which
                                                                        the directive applies and which conform to the essential
                                                                        requirements provided for therein.
      Do requirements follow from this provision as to the
      manner in which descriptive character acquired by use
      is to be ascertained ?                                            The argument that Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 is
                                                                        compatible with Directive 90/396/EEC on account of the
C ) First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate          safety requirements on which it is based is unfounded .
    the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ( 89/         Indeed, the essential requirements laid down by the
     104/EEC ) ( OJ No L 40, 1989, p. 1 ).                              directive in respect of the installation and use of
                                                                        appliances burning gaseous fuels — including of the ' open'
                                                                        type — are exhaustive in that they conform to all the
                                                                        relevant safety requirements and are mandatory in nature .
                                                                        In the present case, the national authority is no longer
                                                                        able to maintain in force nor to adopt national provisions
                                                                        which require compliance with additional requirements,
Action brought on 18 March 1997 by the Commission of                    otherwise the achievement and the functioning of the
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                internal market would be unlawfully hindered.
                            Case C-l 12/97
                             ( 97/C 166/08 )                            The argument that Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 should
                                                                        be regarded as a lawful derogation under Article 36 and
                                                                        100a (4 ), or Article 129a of the EC Treaty from the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before               principle of the free movement of goods is also
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     unfounded .
18 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli and Hans
                                                                        (') OJ No L 196 , 26 . 7. 1990 , p . 15 .
Stovlbaek, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 19 March 1997 by Commission of the
— declare that, by establishing and maintaining a system                     European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
      which requires the installation in inhabited areas only                                    (Case C-l 14/97)
      of 'shielded' heaters, thus impliedly prohibiting the
      installation of heaters of any other type which comply                                       ( 97/C 166/09 )
      with Directive 90/396/EEC ( 1 ), the Italian Republic has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law,
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           on 17 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by A. Caeiro and F. Castillo de
                                                                         la Torre, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 5 ( 10 ) of Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica
 ( Decree of the President of the Republic ) of 26 August                The applicant claims that the Court should:
 1993 (hereinafter DPR 412/93 ) provides that in cases of
 new installations or restructuring of heating systems which
 involve the installation of individual heaters, except in               — declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 7, 8 and
 cases of mere replacement, heaters insulated from the                       10 of Law No 23/1992 of 30 July 1992 0 ), in so far
 inhabited area may be used or, where installation is                        as those provisions make the grant of authorization to
 external or in suitable industrial premises, appliances of                  carry on private security activities in the case of
 any type may be fitted .                                                    ' security companies' subject to the requirement of
                                                                             being constituted in Spain and the requirement that
                                                                             their directors and managers should reside in Spain
 Although Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 does not contain a                  and the requirement that the 'security staff should
 prohibition on the marketing of non-insulated ('open')                      possess Spanish nationality, the Kingdom of Spain has
 heaters or a general prohibition on their installation, it is               failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in
 none the less true that that provision does prohibit                        particular Articles 48 , 52 and 59,
 specifically, albeit impliedly, the fitting of such heaters in
 inhabited areas when installing anew or restructuring
 heating systems.                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-336/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — 2K-Teint and Others v Commission and EIB (Non-contractual liability — Financing contract concluded with Morocco — EIB's alleged negligence and failures in monitoring a loan financed by the Community budget — Limitation — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — 2K-Teint and Others v Commission and EIB
   (Case T-336/06) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Financing contract concluded with Morocco - EIB's alleged negligence and failures in monitoring a loan financed by the Community budget - Limitation - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 142/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: 2K-Teint SARL (Casablanca, Morocco); Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia Kermoudi (Casablanca) (represented by: P. Thomas, lawyer)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Aresu and V. Joris, Agents) and European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by C. Gómez de la Cruz and J.-P. Minnaert, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the EIB's negligence and failures in monitoring the use of funds intended for the completion of the project of 2K-Teint, in performance of the financing contract concluded between the EIB, as agent of the Community, and the Kingdom of Morocco.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               2K-Teint SARL, Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia Kermoudi are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB).

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.