title: Case T-371/17: Action brought on 13 June 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/34

         Action brought on 13 June 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
   (Case T-371/17)
   (2017/C 256/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Qualcomm, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States), Qualcomm Europe, Inc. (San Diego) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato and M. Davilla, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision C(2017) 2258 final of the European Commission, of 31 March 2017, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 in Case AT.39711 — Qualcomm (predation); and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principle of necessity

                           —

                           The applicants first put forward that the contested decision exceeds the narrow scope of the Commission’s investigation as that scope was defined in the Statement of Objections (‘SO’), the Oral Hearing, the State-of-Play meeting, and in previous requests for information (‘RFI’s’), both in terms of duration of the alleged abuse and potential theories of harm being pursued by the Commission.

                           —

                           They further allege that the far-reaching questions contained in the contested decision cannot be characterised as follow-up questions that would merely seek clarifications in relation to arguments made by them in the SO response and during the Oral Hearing, but as entirely new, unwarranted requests.

                           —

                           Further, according to the applicants, the contested decision seeks to follow-up on points that concern their responses to RFIs adopted, in some instances, more than five years ago, and pertaining to facts that occurred ten years or more ago. The applicants claim that, were the additional information now requested truly necessary for the Commission to pursue its investigation, they would legitimately have expected that he Commission would at the very least have sought such information and clarifications prior to the SO’s adoption in December 2015, and not in early 2017.

                           —

                           Further, according to the applicants, the contested decision requests them to perform a significant amount of work on behalf of the Commission, including processing data to be provided in a specific format.

                           —

                           Finally, the applicants put forward that the Commission cannot impose, under the threat of fines, a burden seemingly designed to allow the applicants to substantiate arguments made by them in the SO Response.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the information the contested decision seeks to obtain from them is unwarranted, far-reaching and extremely burdensome to collect or to compile. According to the applicants, the contested decision requires them to collect vast amounts of information that they do not collect and store in a systematic way in the ordinary course of business and undertake a very significant amount of work on the Commission’s behalf.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the periodic penalty payments foreseen in the contested decision should the applicants fail to provide such information within specified time-limits are unwarranted, and the time-limits set are unreasonable.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks adequate reasoning
               The applicants put forward that in a number of instances, the contested decision provides unconvincing, unclear, vague and inadequate reasons which fail to justify the Commission’s over-reaching and unnecessary requests for information. According to the applicants, in other instances, the contested decision does not provide any reasons at all. The applicants thus claim that they cannot understand the reasons why the requested information is necessary for the Commission to conduct its investigation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the war decision seeks to perpetrate an undue reversal burden of proof
               The applicants put forward that the contested decision seeks to reverse the burden of proof and effectively ‘outsource’ to the applicants the building of a case against them. In particular, the contested decision requests that the applicants verify, on the Commission’s behalf, the applicants’ accounting data entries, even though such data has been diligently audited by external controllers. Similarly, so the applicants state, the contested decision asks the applicants to prove that it has conducted its business in accordance with the law.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the right to avoid self-incrimination

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the contested decision requires them to provide ‘information’ that cannot legitimately be considered as consisting of facts or documents, but which consists instead of calculations, details and codes, hypothetical prices, and analyses and interpretations of historical assumptions made several years ago.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the contested decision requires them to demonstrate that they have proactively taken measures to comply with EU competition rules.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principle of sound administration
               According to the applicants, the timing of adoption, content and context of the contested decision raise serious concerns of mal-administration, prosecutorial basis, and harassment and they suggest that the Commission is abusing its broad investigatory powers in an attempt to conceal its failure to establish the alleged infringement after more than seven years of investigation.


title: Case T-224/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/12                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (Case T-225/03)
03 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 239/20)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick,
                                                                              Inishmore, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-224/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                            (2003/C 239/19)                                          Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Shauan Ann;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           ings.
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty,
Kilronan, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
                                                                              03 (1).
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW trawler
       vessel to replace the MFV Westward Isle;
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers
                                                                              Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                munities
       ings.
                                                                                (Case T-226/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (2003/C 239/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers
                                                                              Limited, Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
                                                                              A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.


title: Case T-59/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/42

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission
   (Case T-59/06)
   (2006/C 86/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Low & Bonar plc (Dundee, United Kingdom) and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV (Zele, Belgium) [represented by: L. Garzaniti, lawyer, M. O'Regan, Solicitor]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Contested Decision of the Commission, no. C(2005)4634, of 30 November 2005, in case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags in its entirety, insofar as it relates to the applicants; or

               —

               in the alternative, annul in part Article 1(1) insofar as it relates to the applicants and annul in part, or alternatively, reduce as appropriate the fine imposed by Article 2 on the applicants; and

               —

               in the further alternative, reduce substantially the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2 upon the applicants; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including default interest incurred by the applicants or either of them associated with the payment in whole or part of the fine; and

               —

               take any other measures that the Court considers to be appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the Contested Decision the Commission found that Bonar Phormium Packaging (‘BPP’) had participated in a complex cartel between manufacturers of plastic industrial bags, affecting Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain. It also found that this cartel had been organised at the European level around a trade association known as Valveplast, along with various sub-groups. It found the first applicant liable for BPP's participation on the grounds that it was the parent company of Bonar Phormium NV (‘BP’), of which BPP was a division, and the second applicant liable on the grounds that it was the legal successor to BP, with which it had effected a legal merger. The Commission imposed a fine of 12.24 million EUR on the applicants.
   The first applicant contends that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in finding it liable for the infringement committed by BPP. It alleges that, contrary to the findings of the Contested Decision, it did not participate in the commercial policy of BPP, whose management determined autonomously its conduct on the market.
   Both applicants further and alternatively contend that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in finding that the complex arrangement identified in the Contested Decision amounted to a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC committed, at the European level, around Valveplast, alternatively in finding that BPP had participated in or was otherwise aware of and thereby responsible for such an infringement. According to the applicants, the Commission was only entitled to find that BPP had participated in, or alternatively was aware of and responsible for, arrangements covering Belgium and the Netherlands and, of having participated in the Valveplast cartel for one week only, i.e. between 21 November 1997, when a representative of BPP attended a Valveplast meeting, and 28 November 1997 when, according to the Contested Decision, BPP's participation came to an end.
   The applicants further and alternatively submit that the fine imposed by the Commission was excessive and disproportionate and infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and that the Commission committed other errors of law and assessment in determining the level of the fine and furthermore failed to provide reasons to justify its calculation of the fine. In this context the applicants allege that the Commission failed to appreciate that BPP had played an exclusively passive and limited role and that, further, the Commission imposed a disproportionately and excessively high basic amount.


title: Case C-431/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça by order of that court of  3 November 2005  in Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos, L.da v Merck & Co. Inc and Merck Sharp & Dohme, L.da

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça by order of that court of 3 November 2005 in Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos, L.da v Merck & Co. Inc and Merck Sharp & Dohme, L.da
   (Case C-431/05)
   (2006/C 36/46)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça of 3 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos, L.da and Merck & Co. Inc and Merck Sharp & Dohme, L.da on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the Court of Justice of the European Communities have jurisdiction to interpret Article 33 of the TRIPs Agreement (1)?

               2.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, must national courts apply that article, on their own initiative or at the request of a party, in proceedings pending before them?

      (1)  Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, Annex 1C to the World Trade Organisation Agreement, approved on behalf of the Community, with regard to matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ L 336, 23.12.1994 p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 October 1996 in Case T-37/94: Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Reinstatement - Determination of the level of a post - Act adversely affecting an official)

text:
No C 354/24            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23 . 11 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the
                      of 16 October 1996                             decision of the Commission of 16 December 1993 regarding
in Case T-37/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the
                                                                     the publication of a vacancy notice for the post ( ref:
                                                                     COM/ 144/93 ) of Head of Unit 1 ( Milk products ) of
                  European Communities ( 1 )                         Directorate D ( Organization of markets in livestock
 (Officials — Reinstatement — Determination of the level of          products ) of Directorate-General VI ( Agriculture ) — the
        a post — Act adversely affecting an official)                Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K.
                          ( 96/C 354/46 )                            Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.
                                                                     Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     given a judgment on 16 October 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-37/94 : Dimitrios Benecos, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique                  2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs, including
Leclercq, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Ariane Tornel , of              those relating to the proceedings for interim
                                                                         measures .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent : Ana                 (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission classifying as a grade A 5 post
the position ( ref. COM/022/93 ) of Head of Unit 4
( Technical group on infrastructure ) of Directorate E ( East
and    Southern     Africa )     of Directorate-General    VIII
( Development ) and for annulment of all subsequent
decisions, in particular the decision rejecting the applicant's       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application for the post, as well as the decision appointing                               of 16 October 1996
Mr G. to that post — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P.               in Case T-336/94 : Efisol SA v. Commission of the European
Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,                                          Communities ( ! )
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            (Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 on substances that deplete
16 October 1996 , in which it:                                       the ozone layer — Allocation ofquotas — Import licences —
                                                                     Refusal to grant — Application for compensation —
                                                                                Protection of legitimate expectations)
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                96/C 354/48 )
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                     In Case T-336/94 : Efisol SA, having its registered office in
                                                                     Paris, represented by Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and
                                                                    Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt et
                                                                     Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities ( Agent: Marc H. van der
                                                                    Woude ) — application under Article 178 and the second
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty seeking
                      of 16 October 1996                             compensation for the damage occasioned by the refusal to
in Case T-56/94 : Raffaele de Santis v. Commission of the            grant licences to import chlorofluorocarbon 11 into the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                         Community — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber,
                                                                     Extended Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President,
     (Officials — Vacancy notice — Abuse of process)                 C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M.
                          ( 96/C 354/47 )                            Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 16 October 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     1 . dismisses the application;
In Case T-56/94 : Raffaele de Santis , an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  2 . orders the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique
Leclercq, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Ariane Tornel, of           (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:


title: Case T-185/01: Action brought on 4 August 2001 by Dominique Ramaekers against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.11.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/29
—     in the alternative, annul the decisions of the Board of             Action brought on 4 August 2001 by Dominique Ramae-
      Appeal and the Opposition Division in so far as they                kers against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concern the application for registration of the applicant’s                                         ties
      mark for the goods in Class 5; and order that the
      application in respect of the amended specification for
      the goods in Class 5 be referred back to the Opposition                                       (Case T-185/01)
      Division for further consideration;
                                                                                (2001/C 317/57)
—     order that the applicant’s costs of defending the original
      opposition and of prosecuting the appeal before the
      Board of Appeal and of prosecuting this appeal before                                   (Language of the case: French)
      the Court of First Instance be paid to the applicant.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           European Communities on 4 August 2001 by Dominique
                                                                          Ramaekers, resident in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represent-
                                                                          ed by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an
Applicant for the Com-         Alza Corporation, Mountain                 address for service in Luxembourg.
munity trade mark:             View, California, U.S.A.
The Community trade            The word mark ‘E-TRANS’ for
mark concerned:                certain goods in Classes 5, 10             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               and 42 (e.g. pharmaceutical and
                               veterinary preparations and sub-
                               stances)         —        application      —     annul the decision of the selection board for the Research
                               No. 120089                                       selection COM/R/A/01/1999 to award her a mark that
                                                                                was not sufficient to allow her to be included on the
Proprietor of the right to     Hexal AG, Holzkirchen, Germany                   reserve list;
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                  —     in so far as necessary, annul the subsequent decision of
proceedings:                                                                    the Selection Committee and of the AECE establishing
                                                                                the reserve list for the Research selection process
Trade mark or sign             The      German        trade    mark             COM/R/A/01/1999;
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘ESTRANS’ for certain goods in
sition in the opposition       Class 5
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
proceedings:
Decision of the Oppo-          Partial accept of the opposition,
sition Division:               insofar as it relates to pharmaceut-
                               ical and veterinary preparations
                               and substances (Class 5)                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                   The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
                                                                          on the reserve list of successful candidates in the context of
Grounds of claim:              —     The goods covered by the             the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
                                     two marks are different;             staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
                                                                          Technological Development programmes.
                               —     there is no likelihood of con-
                                     fusion; and
                               —     Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-
                                                                          The pleas and main arguments are those put forward in Case
                                     lation 40/94 (1) is not appli-
                                                                          T-182/01 Bachotet v Commission (1).
                                     cable.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the           (1) Not yet published in the OJEC.
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-327/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ANTICO CASALE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)
   (Case T-327/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ANTICO CASALE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 256/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fratelli Polli, SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Bacchini, M. Mazzitelli and E. Rondinelli, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2016 (Case R 1337/2015-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Aldi Einkauf and Fratelli Polli.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 September 1999 in Case C-375/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Tournai): General Motors Corporation v Yplon SA (Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade marks - Protection - Non-similar products or services - Trade mark having a reputation)

text:
4.12.1999                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 352/7
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 September 1999
                       of 14 September 1999
                                                                               in Case C-375/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-275/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                      the Tribunal de Commerce de Tournai): General Motors
the Finanzgericht Köln): DE + ES Bauunternehmung                                                   Corporation v Yplon SA (1)
                 GmbH v Finanzamt Bergheim (1)
(Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts — Principle of                         (Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks — Protection —
a true and fair view — Principle that valuations must be                       Non-similar products or services — Trade mark having a
made on a prudent basis — Principle that valuations must                                                     reputation)
be made separately — Global provisions for a number of
potential liabilities — Conditions governing the making of
                               provisions)                                                                (1999/C 352/14)
                            (1999/C 352/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-275/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  In Case C-375/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Köln, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                     Commerce (Commercial Court) de Tournai (Belgium) for a
pending before that court between DE + ES Bauunternehmung                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
GmbH and Finanzamt Bergheim — on the interpretation of                         court between General Motors Corporation and Yplon SA —
the Fourth Council Directive (78/660/EEC) of 25 July 1978                      on the interpretation of Article 5(2) of the First Council
based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts                 Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December 1988 to approximate
of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — the                     the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President                1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet
of the Fifth Chamber, P. Jann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                     (President of the Third and Fifth Chambers), acting for the
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                 President, P. Jann (President of Chamber), J.C. Moitinho de
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September                      Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Ed-
1999, in which it has ruled:                                                   ward, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;
                                                                               F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
The Fourth Council Directive (78/660/EEC) of 25 July 1978 based                judgment on 14 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
types of companies requires provision to be made for potential
liabilities under warranties, such as those in question in the main            Article 5(2) of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of
proceedings, as obligations arising in law before the date of the              21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
balance sheet but whose effects will not become apparent until after           relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order
that date. A single provision for all such potential liabilities must be       to enjoy protection extending to non-similar products or services, a
made where, as in the present case, a global valuation is the most             registered trade mark must be known by a significant part of the
appropriate way of ensuring that the expenditure to be shown under             public concerned by the products or services which it covers. In the
Liabilities represents a true and fair view of its amount. In the absence      Benelux territory, it is sufficient for the registered trade mark to be
of Community rules specifically applying to the method and criteria            known by a significant part of the public concerned in a substantial
for evaluating provisions for charges and liabilities, those provisions        part of that territory, which part may consist of a part of one of the
should be determined under the conditions laid down by the national            countries composing that territory.
legislation of the various Member States, on condition, however, that
the annual accounts give a true and fair view of the assets, financial
position and the profit or loss of the company and that the provisions
do not exceed in amount the sums which are necessary.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.


title: Case C-209/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Lahti Energia Oy

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Lahti Energia Oy
   (Case C-209/09)
   2009/C 193/16
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lahti Energia Oy

      Other parties to the proceedings: Lahden seudun ympäristölautakunta, Hämeen ympäristökeskus and Salpausselän luonnonystävät ry.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is combustion as an additional fuel in the boiler of a power plant of gas generated in a gas plant to be regarded as an operation within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2000/76/EC, (1) if the gas conducted for combustion is not purified after the gasification process?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is basically in the negative, does the quality of the waste for incineration, or the particle content of the gas conducted for incineration, or the content of other impurities in it have any bearing on the matter when making an assessment?

      (1)  Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, OJ 2000 L 332, p. 91.


title: Case T-162/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 January 2009 — Kronoply v Commission (State aid — Regional aid for large investment projects — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Statement of reasons — Incentive effect of the aid — Necessity of the aid)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 January 2009 — Kronoply v Commission
   (Case T-162/06) (1)

   (State aid - Regional aid for large investment projects - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Statement of reasons - Incentive effect of the aid - Necessity of the aid)
   (2009/C 55/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, and subsequently by V. Kreuschitz, K. Gross and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/262/EC of 21 September 2005 on State aid No C 5/2004 (ex N 609/2003) which Germany is planning to implement for Kronoply (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 50).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-482/03: Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
10.1.2004             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 7/27
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Com-                             Commission of the European Communities, represented by
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                     W. Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg.
                        (Case C-482/03)
                          (2004/C 7/46)                                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                        Directives 2001/12/EC amending Council Directive 91/
Justice of the European Communities on 19 November 2003                          440/EEC on the development of the Community’s rail-
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                       ways (1), 2001/13/EC amending Council Directive 95/18/
by W. Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in                      C on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) and 2001/
Luxembourg.                                                                      14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
                                                                                and the levying of charges for the use of railway
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                      infrastructure and safety certification (3), of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, or in
                                                                                any event by failing to notify those provisions to it, the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under these Directives;
      Directives 2001/12/EC amending Council Directive 91/
      440/EEC on the development of the Community’s rail-
      ways (1), 2001/13/EC amending Council Directive 95/18/               2.    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      C on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) and 2001/                   Ireland to pay the costs.
      14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
      and the levying of charges for the use of railway
      infrastructure and safety certification (3), of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, or in
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      any event by failing to communicate them to the
      Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under these Directives;
                                                                           The period within which the Directives had to be transposed
2.    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                      expired on 15 March 2003.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26.
                                                                           (3) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
The period within which the Directives had to be transposed
expired on 15 March 2003.
(1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26.
(3) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-62/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/48)
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                        By order of 8 September 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                           Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                        (Case C-483/03)                                    ordered the removal from the register of Case C-62/02:
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom
                          (2004/C 7/47)                                    of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 19 November 2003 by the


title: Case T-27/14: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Article 22 of Directive 2003/55 EC — Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to annul its decision relating to the grant of a derogation — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/40

      Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission
      (Case T-27/14) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Internal market in natural gas - Article 22 of Directive 2003/55 EC - Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to annul its decision relating to the grant of a derogation - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 016/63)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter C(2013)7221 final of 4 November 2013, addressed to the Czech Ministry of Trade and Industry, and the Czech Energy Regulatory Office, on the basis of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


C 134/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                     Removal from the register of Case C-103/99 (1)
istrative d’Appel de Lyon (Second Chamber), France, by
judgment of that court of 13 March 2001 in the case of
Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie v                                   (2001/C 134/22)
                           GEMO SA
                                                                     By order of 7 November 2000 the President of the Court of
                        (Case C-126/01)                              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-103/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 134/19)                               ruling from Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): P. Moskof
                                                                     AE v Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Lyon (Administrative Court of Appeal,             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Lyons) (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de l’Économie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie v GEMO SA on the following
question:
‘Does the charge on meat purchases provided for under
Article 302 bis ZD of the Code Général des Impôts form part
of an arrangement which may be regarded as aid within the
meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957                        Removal from the register of Case C-84/99 (1)
establishing the European Community (now, after amendment,
Article 87 EC)?’                                                                            (2001/C 134/23)
                                                                     By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-84/99: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Amsterdamsche
                                                                     Football Club ‘AJAX’ and Langenberg Participaties BV, also
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/00 (1)                 trading under the name ‘Fan Promotions’ v S.C. Reule and
                                                                     Others.
                       (2001/C 134/20)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                     (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-91/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-163/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-90/00 (1)                                        (2001/C 134/24)
                       (2001/C 134/21)                               By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-163/00: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
from the register of Case C-90/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 1999 in Joined Cases T-191/96 and T-106/97: CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy - Food aid - Tendering procedure - Payment of successful tenderers in fruit other than those specified in the notice of invitation to tender)

text:
4.12.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 352/31
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 12 October 1999                                                         of 14 October 1999
in Case T-48/96: Acme Industry Co. Ltd v Council of the
                      European Union (1)                                 in Joined Cases T-191/96 and T-106/97: CAS Succhi di
                                                                         Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(Dumping — Articles 2(3)(b)(ii) and 2(10)(b) of Regulation
(EEC) No 2423/88 — Retroactive application of Regulation
(EC) No 3283/94 — Constructed normal value — Estab-                      (Common agricultural policy — Food aid — Tendering
lishing sales, general and administrative expenses and profit            procedure — Payment of successful tenderers in fruit other
margin — Reliability of data — Treatment of import duties                   than those specified in the notice of invitation to tender)
                       and indirect taxes)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/55)
                        (1999/C 352/54)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-48/96 Acme Industry Co. Ltd, established in                    In Joined Cases T-191/96 and T-106/97: CAS Succhi di Frutta
Bangkok, represented by Jacques Bourgeois, of the Brussels               SpA, established in Castagnaro, Italy, represented by Alberto
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe v Council of the                    Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of the Venice Bar
European Union (Agents: Antonio Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe                  against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
and Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the                   Paolo Ziotti and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application for annul-
European Communities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and French                   ment of Commission Decisions C (96) 2208 of 6 September
Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Sujiro Seam) —             1996 (Case T-191/96) amending its decision of 14 June 1996,
application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                 and C (96) 1916 of 22 July 1996 (Case T-106/97) on the
No 5/96 of 22 December 1995 imposing definitive anti-                    supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of
dumping duties on imports of microwave ovens originating in              Armenia and Azerbaijan provided for in Regulation (EC)
the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia          No 228/96 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty            composed of A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and
imposed (OJ 1996 L 2, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber,                  A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
Extended Composition), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President,               on 14 October 1999, in which it:
R. Garcia-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judg-
es; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October
1999, in which it:                                                       1. Annuls Commission Decision C (96) 2208 of 6 September
                                                                              1996;
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                         2. Dismisses the application in Case T-106/97 as inadmissible;
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
     Council;
                                                                         3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs in Case T-191/96,
                                                                              orders each party to bear its own costs in Case T-191/96 R, and
3. Orders the Commission and the French Republic to bear their                orders the applicant to pay the costs relating to Case T-106/97.
     own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997 and C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2003 in Case C-185/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Auto Lease Holland BV v Bundesamt für Finanzen (Sixth VAT Directive — Place of taxable transactions — Refund of VAT paid in another Member State — Motor vehicle made available under a leasing contract — Fuel management agreement — Person having been supplied with fuel)

text:
C 83/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                   5.4.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 13 February 2003                                                              of 6 February 2003
in Case C-131/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-185/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                            from the Bundesfinanzhof): Auto Lease Holland BV v
                                                                                Bundesamt für Finanzen (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Patent
                                                                             (Sixth VAT Directive — Place of taxable transactions —
agents — Duty to be enrolled on the register of patent agents
                                                                             Refund of VAT paid in another Member State — Motor
of the host Member State — Obligation to have a residence
                                                                             vehicle made available under a leasing contract — Fuel
         or place of business in the host Member State)
                                                                             management agreement — Person having been supplied with
                                                                                fuel)
                           (2003/C 83/06)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/07)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-131/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: B. Mongin and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara): Application for a                In Case C-185/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
declaration that, by retaining rules requiring patent agents                 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
established in other Member States to be enrolled on the Italian             in the proceedings pending before that court between Auto
register of patent agents and to have a residence or place of                Lease Holland BV and Bundesamt für Finanzen, on the
business in Italy, in order to provide services before the Italian           interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
Patent Office, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
obligations under Articles 49 EC to 55 EC concerning the                     States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
freedom to provide services, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                      added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145,
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                 President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, P. Jann, S. von
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  Bahr and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2003, in                      General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Febru-
which it:                                                                    ary 2003, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that by retaining rules requiring patent agents               Article 5(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
      established in other Member States to be enrolled on the Italian       1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
      register of patent agents and to have a residence or place of          relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
      business in Italy, in order to provide services before the Italian     uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that there
      Patent Office, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its           is not a supply of fuel by the lessor of a vehicle to the lessee where the
      obligations under Articles 49 EC to 55 EC;                             lessee fills up at filling stations the vehicle which is the subject-matter
                                                                             of a leasing contract, even if the vehicle is filled up in the name and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          at the expense of that lessor.
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.


title: Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Piera Ghignone and Others against Council of the European Union (Case T-44/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 142/ 19
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address                  — order the defendant to pay the applicant one ecu as
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne                          token damages in respect of non-material damage,
Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request of 12 March 1996
                                                                         The applicant objects to the reduction to three months of
     that she be regraded,
                                                                         her contract as a member of the auxiliary staff in
                                                                         category A in the service of the defendant. She states that
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                 the offer of employment, notified by letter of 30 April
     decision of 22 November 1996 rejecting her                          1 996, expressly referred to a term of 36 months . However,
     administrative complaint of 10 July 1996,                           on the following 7 May, she presented herself at the
                                                                         recruitment department where a contract for the term to
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         which she objects was presented to her. In those
                                                                         circumstances, it was only five weeks before the expiry of
                                                                         that three-month contract that the defendant informed her
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      that the offer of employment on the basis of which she
                                                                         made essential family, financial and professional
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   arrangements had lapsed as a result of a 'typing error'.
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                         In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first,
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                         expectations and of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                         welfare of officials. She considers that, in view of the
                                                                         duration of the contract at issue, the administration 's
                                                                         slowness in examining the problems associated with one
                                                                         of the decisive factors prompting her acceptance of the
                                                                         offer, namely the duration of the contract, is manifestly
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc                   contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the
     against Commission of the European Communities                      principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                          ( Case T-43/97)                                which any party to a contract is entitled to rely on as
                                                                         regards the conduct of the other party. In her opinion, it is
                            ( 97/C 142/42 )
                                                                         unacceptable for one of the parties unilaterally to change
                                                                         one of the essential features of a bilateral contract during
                (Language of the case: French)                           its currency, particularly on which was decisive in bringing
                                                                         about the consent of the other party to it. Even if —
An action against the Commission of the European                         although that was not the case — a typing error misled
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        the applicant, it was incumbent on the administration to
Instance on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc,                        take immediate action to rectify matters .
residing in Paris, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                       sound administration and good management.
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision changing the duration
     of her contract as a member of the auxiliary staff of               Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Piera Ghignone and
     the 'Industrial Policy' Directorate-General, 'Legislation                  Others against Council of the European Union
     and     standarization        and    telematics     networks '                               Case T-44/97 )
     Directorate, ' Quality, certification and conformity
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/43 )
     marking' Unit ( DG.III.3P.4 ), offered by letter of
     30 April 1996 ,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the
     remuneration to which she is entitled as a member of                An action against the Council of the European Union was
     the auxiliary staff for the period of 36 months                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 3 March
     indicated in the contract, plus interest at the rate of             1997 by Piera Ghignone, Helga Glassl, Colette Jemaa,
     8 % per annum, subject to deduction of any sums                     Enrica Massucco, Giovanni di Maio, Rene Franquinet,
     received and those which may be received by way of                  Klaus-Dietrich Jagstaidt, Michel Perillat, residing in
     remuneration in the same period,                                    Geneva, Jacques Brodin, residing in Tannay ( Switzerland ),
 ---pagebreak--- No C 142/20           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 5 . 97
Servatius van Thiel, residing in Nyon ( Switzerland), Ettore       retroactively from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July
Zamproni, residing in Bellevue ( Switzerland ), Leo Geboers        1995 , thus severely curtailing the applicants' remuneration
and David Hollister, residing in New York, and Monique             ( by about 15% ). Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff
Weygandt, residing in Larchmont ( USA), represented by             Regulations requires that, where the variation in the cost
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel,              of living is found to exceed 5 % since the last adjustment
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                for a given country, interim measures be adopted to adjust
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30              the weighting. In this case no such measures were
Rue de Cessange.                                                   adopted.
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance              The applicants also refer to the fact that in this case the
should :
                                                                   Council received in due time proposals from the
                                                                   Commission for the adjustment of remuneration with
— annul the applicants' salary statements for May 1996,            effect from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July 1995
    in that they apply for the first time Council                  for officials assigned to non-member countries but, for
    Regulations (Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 577/96,                    what are in their view political reasons, the Council did
     ( Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 578/96 and ( Euratom,                not adopt the contested regulations until 25 March 1996 .
    ECSC, EC ) No 579/96 of 25 March 1996 laying down              According to the applicants, that delay shows that the aim
    the weightings applicable to the remuneration of               pursued by those regulations certainly did not make it
    officials of the European Communities serving in third         necessary for them to take effect prior to their publication.
    countries as from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and              In any event, the applicants state that they were not
     1 July 1995 respectively,                                     aware, and had no opportunity to learn, of the alleged
                                                                   irregularity of the remuneration paid before the date of
                                                                   publication of the regulations in question .
— annul the applicants' salary statements for June 1996,
     in that they incorporate deductions by way of recovery
     of salary overpaid, pursuant to the abovementioned            Lastly, the applicants claim that the fact that they were
     regulations,                                                  deprived of their right to consider whether or not it was
                                                                   appropriate to ask the appointing authority to arrange for
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                            all or part of their remuneration to be paid at their places
                                                                   of employment, subject to the weightings laid down for
                                                                   such places and after conversion at the corresponding rate
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                of exchange, constituted an infringement of Article 12 of
                                                                   Annex X to the Staff Regulations.
The applicants, who are officials employed outside the
territory of the Community, object to the procedures for           (') OJ No L 83 , 2 . 4 . 1996 , pp . 1 , 4 and 7 .
calculation of the weightings applicable, as from specified
dates, to their remuneration; they also object to the
deductions made to recover amounts allegedly overpaid .
On 25 March 1996, the Council adopted Regulations
( Euratom, ECSC , EC ) No 577/96 , ( Euratom, ECSC, EC )
No 578/96 and ( Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 579196 laying               Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Georges Martins
down the weightings applicable to the remuneration of                 against the Commission of the European Communities
officials of the European Communities serving in third                                        ( Case T-45/97 )
countries as from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July
 1995 respectively. (')                                                                         97/C 142/44 )
In support of their action, the applicants allege first                            (Language of the case: French)
breach of the principles of legal certainty, acquired rights
and non-retroactivity of provisions of regulations, and
breach of the obligation to state the reasons on which a           An action against the Commission of the European
measure is based. They state that the institution employing         Communities was brought before the Court of First
them drew up, under the regulations in force at the                Instance of the European Communities on 3 March 1997
material time, salary statements for the period of six              by Georges Martins, residing in Brussels, represented by
months prior to the adoption of the three contested                Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
regulations and that consequently those statements                  service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
constitute 'legal acts' which conferred subjective rights           Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
which ought to be protected. The principle is consistently
expressed in legal literature and in the case-law, they say,
that a legal act which has created such rights cannot be           The applicant claims that the Court should:
withdrawn .
                                                                   — annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
They also consider that it was unlawful for the Council to              22 November 1996 expressly rejecting the applicant's
 decide to make the contested regulations take effect                   complaint,


title: Case C-1/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 December 2001 in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Bochum

text:
C 56/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.3.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                (b) Do Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 85/384/EEC — which
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 December 2001                       state that a qualification as a civil engineer is to be treated
in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann GmbH & Co. KG                       as equivalent to that of architect for the purposes of
                against Hauptzollamt Bochum                                 entitlement to provide services in the professional field of
                                                                            architecture — require a Member State not to exclude
                                                                            from entitlement to provide the services in question
                         (Case C-1/02)
                                                                            persons who have successfully completed in that Member
                                                                            State a course of studies such as those completed by
                        (2002/C 56/18)                                      those holding civil engineering qualifications in Italy?
                                                                       (c)  On the assumption that there is substantive similarity
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      between the course of studies and professional training
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-                  pursued by architects and by civil engineers, does the
dorf (Finance Court Düsseldorf) of 19 December 2001, which                  principle of equality, as a general principle of Community
was received at the Court Registry on 7 January 2002, for a                 law, require in any event that persons holding qualifi-
preliminary ruling in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann                  cations in civil engineering be also allowed to pursue
GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Bochum on the                            activities reserved for architects?
following question:
Does the penalty regulation in the second paragraph of Article         (1) OJ L 223 of 10.6.1985, p. 15.
3(2)of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
1993 (OJ EC L 57, p. 12) as amended pursuant to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (OJ EC L 142,
p. 22) contravene the proportionality rule in cases where the
time-limit is exceeded only marginally and moreover without
fault?
                                                                       Action brought on 10 January 2002 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the French Republic
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                                (Case C-6/02)
Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto by order of
24 October 2001 in the case of Alessandro Mosconi and
the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia against                                         (2002/C 56/20)
Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architittonici di
   Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali
                         (Case C-3/02)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 January
                        (2002/C 56/19)                                 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by H. van Lier and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per il Veneto (Regional Administrative Court,           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Venice) of 24 October 2001, received at the Court Registry on          the Court should:
8 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Alessandro Mosconi and the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona
                                                                       —    declare that, by maintaining the national legal protection
e Provincia (Order of Engineers of the City and Province of
                                                                            afforded to the designations ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’, ‘Label
Verona) against Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e
                                                                            régional Savoie’, ‘Label régional Franche-Comté’, ‘Label
Architittonici di Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
                                                                            régional Corse’, ‘Label régional Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Label
Culturali (Authority responsible for the environmental and
                                                                            régional Normandie’, ‘Label régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais’,
architectural heritage of Venice — Ministry of Cultural Assets
                                                                            ‘Label régional Ardennes de France’, ‘Label régional
and Activities) on the following questions
                                                                            Limousin’, ‘Label régional Languedoc-Roussillon’, and
                                                                            ‘Label régional Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed
(a)   Must Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 (1)                 to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;
      be interpreted as meaning that, precisely because it lays
      down rules of minimum harmonisation, its provisions
      must be applied to purely internal situations?                   —    order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-267/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 June 2015 — Gemeente Woerden; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 June 2015 — Gemeente Woerden; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-267/15)
   (2015/C 262/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Gemeente Woerden

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   In a case such as the present, in which a taxable person has had a building constructed and has sold that building for a price which does not cover all of the costs, while the purchaser of the building has given a certain part thereof to a third party for the latter’s use free of charge, is that taxable person entitled to deduct all of the VAT charged in respect of the construction of the building, or only a part thereof, in proportion to the parts of the building which the purchaser uses for economic activities (in the present case, leasing in return for payment)?


title: Joined Cases C-320/11, C-330/11, C-382/11 and C-383/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — DIGITALNET OOD (C-320/11 and C-383/11), Tsifrova kompania OOD (C-330/11), M SAT CABLE AD (C-382/11) v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Apparatus capable of receiving television signals and incorporating a modem for gaining access to the internet and having a function of interactive information exchange)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — DIGITALNET OOD (C-320/11 and C-383/11), Tsifrova kompania OOD (C-330/11), M SAT CABLE AD (C-382/11) v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna
   (Joined Cases C-320/11, C-330/11, C-382/11 and C-383/11) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Apparatus capable of receiving television signals and incorporating a modem for gaining access to the internet and having a function of interactive information exchange)
   2013/C 26/18
   Language of the cases: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: DIGITALNET OOD (C-320/11 and C-383/11), Tsifrova kompania OOD (C-330/11), M SAT CABLE AD (C-382/11)

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1) — Subheading No 8528 71 13 of the Combined Nomenclature (Apparatus with a microprocessor-based device incorporating a modem for gaining access to the internet, and having a function of interactive information exchange, also capable of receiving television signals (‘set-top boxes with communication function’)) or No 8521 90 00 (Other video recording or reproducing apparatus, whether or not incorporating a video tuner) — Apparatus capable of receiving television signals or serving as a modem for gaining access to the internet and having a function of interactive information exchange — Meaning of the concepts ‘internet’, ‘modem’ and ‘modulation and demodulation’ having regard to the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Combined Nomenclature set out 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, respectively, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of classification of goods under subheading 8528 71 13, a modem for gaining access to the internet is a device which, alone and without the intervention of any other apparatus or mechanism, is capable of accessing the internet and of ensuring interactivity and an exchange of information in both directions. It is solely the capacity to gain access to the internet, and not the technique used to achieve this, that is relevant for the purposes of classification under that subheading.

               2.

               That Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that the reception of television signals and the presence of a modem allowing access to the internet are two equivalent functions that apparatus must perform in order to be classified under subheading 8528 71 13. In the absence of one or other of those functions, that apparatus must be classified under subheading 8528 71 19.

               3.

               Article 78(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that ex post inspection of goods and the subsequent change in their tariff classification may be made on the basis of written documents without the customs authorities being required to physically check those goods.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

      OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case C-131/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Patent agents — Duty to be enrolled on the register of patent agents of the host Member State — Obligation to have a residence or place of business in the host Member State)


title: Case T-275/04: Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Aries Meca against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/32

         Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Aries Meca against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-275/04)
   (2004/C 262/62)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 July 2004 by Aries Meca, established in Poissy (France), represented by Jean-Paul Poulain and Jean-Emmanuel Kuntz, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 16 December 2003, in that Article 1 thereof declared illegal the scheme providing for automatic tax exemption for companies acquiring an undertaking in financial difficulties;

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 16 December 2003, in that Article 5 thereof ordered that the whole of the aid granted under the scheme of Article 44 septies of the Code Général des Impôts be recovered from companies incorporated for the purpose of acquiring an undertaking in financial difficulties;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The decision which is the subject-matter of this case is the same as that which is challenged in Case T-273/04 Brandt Industries v Commission.
   The applicant in this case, Aries Meca, is a company which, by virtue of its acquisition of Aries SAS, benefited from the provisions of the Code Général des Impôts referred to in the contested decision. Its application for annulment is based on a twofold plea that there has been an infringement of both Article 253 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1).

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case C-150/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch by order of that court of 23 March 2005 in Jean Leon Van Straaten v Netherlands State and Italian Republic

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch by order of that court of 23 March 2005 in Jean Leon Van Straaten v Netherlands State and Italian Republic
   (Case C-150/05)
   (2005/C 155/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) of 23 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 23 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Jean Leon Van Straaten and the Netherlands State and the Italian Republic on the following questions:

               1.

               What is to be understood by the same acts within the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA)? (1) (Is having at one's disposal approximately 1 000 grams of heroin in the Netherlands in or around the period from 27 to 30 March 1983 the same act as being in possession of approximately five kilograms of heroin in Italy on or about 27 March 1983, regard being had to the fact that the consignment of heroin in the Netherlands formed part of the consignment of heroin in Italy? Is exporting a consignment of heroin from Italy to the Netherlands the same act as importing the same consignment of heroin from Italy into the Netherlands, regard also being had to the fact that Mr Van Straaten's fellow accused in the Netherlands and Italy are not entirely the same? Having regard to the acts as a whole, consisting of possessing the heroin in question in Italy, exporting it from Italy, importing it into the Netherlands and having it at one's disposal in the Netherlands, are those ‘the same acts’?)

               2.

               Is a person's trial disposed of, for the purposes of Article 54 of the CISA, if the charge brought against that person has been declared not to have been legally and satisfactorily proved and that person has been acquitted on that charge by way of a judgment?

      (1)  The Schengen acquis – Agreement between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ L 239 of 22 September 2000, pp. 13 to 18).


title: Case C-5/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.F. Joustra (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Wine — Articles 7 to 10 — Determination of the Member State in which duties are chargeable — Acquisition by a private individual for his own use and that of other private individuals — Transport to another Member State by a transport undertaking — Arrangements applicable in the Member State of destination)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.F. Joustra
   (Case C-5/05) (1)

   (Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Wine - Articles 7 to 10 - Determination of the Member State in which duties are chargeable - Acquisition by a private individual for his own use and that of other private individuals - Transport to another Member State by a transport undertaking - Arrangements applicable in the Member State of destination)
   (2006/C 331/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: B.F. Joustra
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Wine purchased without the intention of making a profit in one Member State by nationals of another Member State and transported by an undertaking from that second Member State — Excise duty paid in the first Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be construed as meaning that where, as in the case in the main proceedings, a private individual who is not operating commercially or with a view to making a profit acquires in one Member State, for his own personal requirements and those of other private individuals, products subject to excise duty which have been released for consumption in that Member State and arranges for them to be transported to another Member State on his behalf by a transport company established in that other State, Article 7 of that Directive, and not Article 8 thereof, is applicable, with the result that excise duty is also to be levied in that other State. Under Article 7(6) of the Directive, the excise duty paid in the first State is, in such a case, to be reimbursed in accordance with Article 22(3) of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.