title: Case F-81/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Nieminen v Council (Civil service — Promotion — 2010 promotion procedure — 2011 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant — Duty to state reasons — Examination of comparative merits — Administrators assigned to linguistic functions and administrators assigned to functions other than linguistic functions — Promotion quotas — Consistency in the duration of the merits)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Nieminen v Council
   (Case F-81/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Promotion - 2010 promotion procedure - 2011 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Duty to state reasons - Examination of comparative merits - Administrators assigned to linguistic functions and administrators assigned to functions other than linguistic functions - Promotion quotas - Consistency in the duration of the merits))
   2014/C 159/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Risto Nieminen (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: C. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, initially, then C. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Herrmann and M. Bauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decisions not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 in respect of the 2010 and 2011 promotion procedures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Nieminen to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.09.2012, p. 34.


title: Case T-410/09: Action brought on 7 October 2009 — Almamet v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/34

         Action brought on 7 October 2009 — Almamet v Commission
   (Case T-410/09)
   2009/C 312/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall (Ainring, Germany) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and C. Renner, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               to declare the Commission Decision of 22 July 2009 (Case COMP/39.396) void, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 2 of the decision,

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission’s decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by which the Commission found that a number of suppliers of calcium carbide and magnesium granulates engaged in market sharing, quotas and customer allocation, price fixing and exchanges of sensitive commercial information on a substantial part of the EEA market thereby infringing the aforementioned Treaty provisions (‘the contested decision’) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on it by Article 2 of the contested decision.
   The applicant presents three pleas in law in support of its request for annulment:

               With its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission violated its rights of defence in using documents against it which were seized outside the scope of the Commission’s inspection decision.

               With its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to establish to the requisite legal standard of proof the existence of the infringement found in Article 1 of the contested decision as far as magnesium in concerned. The applicant considers that even if the documents which were illegally seized were admitted to the Commission’s file, they are fundamentally lacking precision and coherence. According to the applicant’s submissions, the remainder of the evidence consists of an oral leniency statement which not only lacks precision but also is a misrepresentation of certain facts and is contested by other parties. On this basis, the applicant considers that the burden of proof with regard to the alleged infringement continues to lie with the Commission.

               With its third plea, the applicant contends that the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the single and continuous nature of the infringement. Notably, there is no true substitutability between calcium carbide and magnesium granulates. Moreover, the applicant claims that there was no common overall plan for the two products proved by the existence of distinct meetings for each product.
               In the alternative, the applicant presents four further pleas in support of its request for a reduction of the fine imposed by Article 2 of the contested decision.

               With its fourth plea, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed points 23 and 26 of the Leniency Notice (1) in refusing the applicant a reduction under the said notice. The applicant considers that the elements contained in its leniency application represent information of significant added value. In particular, the applicant considers that the Commission was not entitled to refuse a reduction of the fine on the sole basis that its application did not contain any information on the alleged magnesium infringement since this infringement is not part of the procedure.

               With its fifth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) as well as point 32 of the Fining Guidelines (3) by setting the final amount of the fine at a level exceeding 10 % of its last audited turnover. The applicant contends that the Commission based itself on the applicant’s pro forma turnover figures of 2008 for the purpose of calculating the amount of the fine instead of its last audited turnover for 2007. In addition, the applicant considers that the commission should have applied the 20 % reduction based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines after the calculation of 10 % legal maximum.

               With its sixth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in fixing an excessive amount of the fine as far as it is concerned. The applicant claims that imposing a fine of an amount that results in a negative book value or reduces a company’s book value to zero is manifestly disproportionate. In addition, the fine imposed exceeds the financial capacity of a dealer like the applicant which is operating with very high-value products and very low profit margins. Finally, the applicant considers that the reduction of 20 % applied by the Commission does not sufficiently take into account the applicant’s specific situation explicitly acknowledged by the Commission, still leaving the fine at a disproportionate level.

               With its seventh plea, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal in considering that is did not meet the conditions of point 35 of the Fining Guidelines. The applicant considers that the Commission fixed the amount of the fine at a level which will irretrievably jeopardise its economic viability and cause all its assets to lose their value. In addition, the applicant contends that the commission committed an error of appraisal in considering that there was no specific social and economic context to be taken into account of in the applicant’s case.

      (1)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      (3)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)


title: Case C-35/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 January 2009 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paolo Speranza

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 January 2009 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paolo Speranza
   (Case C-35/09)
   (2009/C 82/29)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

      Respondent: Paolo Speranza
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1), which provides that an increase in the capital of a capital company by contribution of assets of any kind is to be subject to capital duty, to be interpreted as meaning that an actual contribution is to be taxable, but not a mere decision to increase the share capital which remains essentially unimplemented?

               2.

               Is Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the duty must be levied exclusively on the company to which the capital is contributed and not also on the public official who drafts or certifies the transaction?

               3.

               In any event, are the means of defence afforded to that public official by the Italian legislation consistent with the principle of proportionality, in light of the fact that, under Article 38 of Decree No 131/1986 of the President of the Republic, it is irrelevant whether the resolution to increase share capital is null and void or may be annulled, and repayment of the duty paid may be effected only after a civil judgment declaring the transaction null and void or annulling it has become final?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition, 1969 (II), p. 412.


title: Action brought on 28 March 1996 by Syndicat Départemental de Défense du Droit des Agriculteurs (SDDDA) against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-47/96)

text:
 No C 180/32           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 6 . 96
 Action brought on 28 March 1996 by Syndicat                         Action brought on 29 March 1996 by Acme Industry Co.,
 Départemental de Défense du Droit des Agriculteurs                        Ltd against the Council of the European Union
 ( SDDDA ) against Commission of the European                                                ( Case T-48/96 )
                          Communities
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/82 )
                         Case T-47/96 )
                         ( 96/C 180/81 )                                            (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 29 March 1996 by Acme Industry Co .,
 An action against the Commission of the European                    Ltd, represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Bar, Baker & McKenzie, with an address for service
 Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1996               at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolters, 11 rue Goethe,
 by the Syndicat Départemental de Défense du Droit des               Luxembourg.
Agriculteurs ( SDDDA ), whose registered office is at
 Beaucaire , France , represented by Olivier Girard, of the          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nîmes Bar .
                                                                     — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 5/96 in so far as it affects
                                                                         Acme Industry Company Ltd,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — order the Council to pay the costs .
— declare that the European Commission has failed to act
     by not responding clearly to the problem of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments:
     applicability of Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC
     with regard to the monopoly of the French statutory             The applicant, a private company 65 % of which is held by
     social security scheme in the fields of non-life insurance      the Japanese holding company Nisshin Industry Co ., Ltd,
     and life assurance;                                             and whose only activity relates to the production of
                                                                     microwave ovens, challenges Council Regulation No 5/96 ,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            imposing definitive antidumping duties on imports of
                                                                     microwave ovens originating in the People's Republic of
                                                                     China, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      collecting definitively provisional duties .
                                                                     The application is based on the following grounds :
The applicant alleges that the Commission has failed to act
on a complaint which it lodged against the French State for         — infringement of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 on
breach of the provisions of Directives 92/49/EEC and                     protection against dumped or subsidized imports from
92/96/EEC . Those two Directives lay down the principle                  countries not members of the EC ( basic Regulation ),
that all monopolies are to be abolished in the fields of                 because    of the    refusal   of the   Council     and     the
non-life insurance and life assurance and enable any insurer             Commission to calculate the constructed value by
established in the Community to cover any type of risk .                 reference to the sales made by the exporter in the same
                                                                         business sector in the country of export (Japan ),
It claims that the French authorities have systematically
refused to apply those two directives and, in order to              — infringement of the general principle of non-dis
maintain the monopoly of the statutory scheme , have                     crimination by applying the amounts for SG&A costs
enacted Law No 95/116 of 4 February 1 995 containing                     and profits of the Korean exporter, who has a
miscellaneous social security provisions, Article 43 of which            substantially different commercial structure, in order to
lays down penalties of imprisonment and fine for any person              calculate the constructed normal value of ACME
who ' incites those covered by the legislation to refuse (. . .)         products,
to join a social security organization '. The applicant
concludes that France wishes to maintain the monopoly               — the Council should have applied the limitation provided
system intact.                                                           in Article 2.6 of Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94, for the
                                                                         purpose of determining the amounts of profit to be
                                                                         included in the calculation of the constructed normal
According to the applicant, the Commission's only response               value . Although according to its express wording the
to its complaint was to state that the directives in question            Regulation was not yet applicable, it is a general
do not concern statutory social security schemes, and it used            principle of equity to apply a provision which is
a reference for a preliminary ruling pending before the                  technically not yet in force in so far as it is less onerous
Court of Justice ( Case C-238/94 ) as a pretext for eluding its          for the individual concerned than the previous text.
obligation to state reasons .                                            Alternatively, the Council should have interpreted
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 in the light of
                                                                         Article 2.2.2 of the Uruquay Round Anti-Dumping
                                                                         Code,


title: Case C-172/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-768/14, ANKO v European Commission

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/27

         Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-768/14, ANKO v European Commission

   (Case C-172/17 P)
   (2017/C 168/36)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 in Case Τ-768/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the judgment in Case Τ-768/14 of the General Court of 25 January 2017 contains findings of law which are contrary to rules of EU law and challenges those findings by this appeal.
   The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

               i

                     First
                  , on the ground of a distortion of the sense of the evidence, in relation to the reliability of the system for the recording of work time.

               ii

                     Second
                  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the action, to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

               iii

                     Third
                  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the cross-action, to the allocation of the burden of proof.

               iv

                     Fourth
                  , on the ground of breach of an essential procedural requirement and, in particular, on the ground of failure to state reasons in relation to whether the Commission’s claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due.


title: Case C-623/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 5 December 2011 — Société Geodis Calberson GE v FranceAgriMer

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 5 December 2011 — Société Geodis Calberson GE v FranceAgriMer
   (Case C-623/11)
   2012/C 39/21
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Société Geodis Calberson GE

      Respondent: FranceAgriMer

      Question referred

   The proceedings are stayed … until the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have given its ruling on the question whether the provisions of Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 (1) of 18 January 1999 are to be interpreted as conferring on the Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction to rule on disputes relating to the conditions under which the intervention agency designated for receiving the tenders submitted during a tendering procedure for the free supply of agricultural products to Russia makes the payment owed to the successful tenderer and releases the supply security lodged by that tenderer in favour of that agency, in particular, actions for compensation for damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the intervention agency while carrying out those transactions.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).


C 366/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-385/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-160/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/70)                                                        (1999/C 366/73)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-385/94: Johann Wißmüller v Council of the European              Case T-160/95: Harald Meuser v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 248 of 23.9.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-397/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-202/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/71)                                                        (1999/C 366/74)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-397/94: Gerjet Meyenburg v Council of the European              Case T-202/95: Heinrich Gottmann v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 400 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 351 of 30.12.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-399/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-150/96 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/72)                                                        (1999/C 366/75)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: French)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-399/94: Josef Speckbacher v Council of the European             Case T-150/96: Austin Rowan v Commission of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case C-696/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Czech Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Transport — Directive 2010/40/EU — Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport — Article 7 — Delegation of power to the European Commission — Limits — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 — Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 — Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users — Article 290 TFEU — Explicit definition of the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation of power — Essential element of the matter in question — Establishment of a supervisory body)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Czech Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-696/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Transport - Directive 2010/40/EU - Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport - Article 7 - Delegation of power to the European Commission - Limits - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 - Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 - Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users - Article 290 TFEU - Explicit definition of the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation of power - Essential element of the matter in question - Establishment of a supervisory body))
   (2017/C 309/08)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, P.J.O. Van Nuffel, J. Hottiaux and Z. Malůšková, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case T-98/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/19

         Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)
   (Case T-98/13)
   2013/C 141/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2012 in Case R 1615/2011 1 by finding that the absolute ground for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — based on the bad faith of the proprietor of the Community trade mark at the time when the application was filed — and the relative ground for invalidity under Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of the regulation, are made out;

               —

               In the alternative, and only in the event that the Court should consider the documents produced at the time of the appeal before the Board of Appeal inadmissible and should consider those documents essential for the purposes of granting the appeal, annul the contested decision on the ground of failure to have regard to the right to be heard and infringement of the rights of the defence and refer the case back to the Cancellation Division for a decision on the substance;

               —

               In any event, call upon OHIM to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the trade mark proprietor to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: figurative mark containing the word element ‘Camomilla’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 24 — Community trade mark No 269 241

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Camomilla SpA

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘CAMOMILLA’ for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: application rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-33/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Bastos Viegas v OHIM — Fabre Médicament (OPDREX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark OPDREX — Earlier national word mark OPTREX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/47

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Bastos Viegas v OHIM — Fabre Médicament (OPDREX)
   (Case T-33/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark OPDREX - Earlier national word mark OPTREX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 180/87
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bastos Viegas, SA (Penafiel, Portugal) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Pierre Fabre médicament (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo Lafora and M. Ferrándiz Avendaño, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2007 (Case R 1238/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pierre Fabre Médicament SA and Bastos Viegas, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bastos Viegas, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-170/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Commission v I.D. FOS Research

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/42

         Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Commission v I.D. FOS Research
   (Case T-170/08)
   (2008/C 171/81)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

      Defendant: I.D. FOS Research EEIG (Mol, Belgium)
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 21 599,26 together with default interest in the sum of EUR 6 375,94;

               —

               order the defendant to pay default interest of EUR 3,99 per day from 8 January 2007 until the date of full repayment of the debt;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the Commission, entered into Contract BRPR-CT-95-0099 with the defendant on 12 December 1995. The contract concerned a project on improved quality assurance and methods of grouting post-tensioned cables. The contract and the project came into being within the framework of the specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1).
   An examination of the defendant's performance of the contract was undertaken after completion of the contract. On the basis of the results of that examination, the Commission decided to demand repayment of part of the sums paid, in accordance with the general conditions of the contract.

      (1)  Council Decision 94/571/EC of 27 July 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1994-1998) (OJ 1994 L 222, p. 19).


title: Case T-182/14: Action brought 19 March 2014  — Marzocchi Pompe v OHIM — Settima Flow Mechanisms (ELIKA)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/34

         Action brought 19 March 2014 — Marzocchi Pompe v OHIM — Settima Flow Mechanisms (ELIKA)
   (Case T-182/14)
   2014/C 159/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Marzocchi Pompe SpA (Casalecchio di Reno, Italy) (represented by: M. Bovesi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Settima Flow Mechanisms (Grossolengo, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 December 2013 (Case R 428/2013-2) and declare the mark ELIKA valid in respect of all the goods for which it was registered;

               —

               take such other measures as the Court may deem appropriate;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, including those borne by Marzocchi Pompe SpA, in accordance with Article 87(2), read in conjunction with Articles 91(b) and 132(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: International registration extended to the European Union of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘ELIKA’ for goods in Class 7 — Community mark No 1 051 270

      Proprietor of the Community mark: Marzocchi Pompe SpA

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Settima Flow Mechanisms

      Ground for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the mark invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-202/09: Action brought on 5 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/7

         Action brought on 5 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-202/09)
   2009/C 167/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Mmes L. Balta, A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (2), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; and

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 15 September 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 105, p. 54

      (2)  OJ L 201, p. 37


title: Case T-154/09: Action brought on 10 April 2009 — MRI v Commission

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/55

         Action brought on 10 April 2009 — MRI v Commission
   (Case T-154/09)
   2009/C 141/111
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Manuli Rubber Industries SpA (MRI) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, lawyer, M. Pappalardo, lawyer, and E. Marasà, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it states that the applicant participated in a single and continuous infringement in the marine hose sector from 1 April 1986 until 1 August 1992 and from 3 September 1996 until 2 May 2007, in particular during the period from 3 September 1996 to 9 May 2000;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as a fine in the amount of EUR 4 900 000 is imposed on the applicant as a result of the errors set out in the present application;

               —

               reject any objection or defence put forward to the contrary;

         or, in the lesser alternative:

               —

               reduce, in accordance with Article 229 EC, the fine of EUR 4 900 000 to be imposed on the applicant under Article 2 of the Decision;

         and, in any event:

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Decision contested in the present case (‘the contested decision’) is the same as that contested in Case T-146/09 Parker ITR and Parker Hannifin v Commission.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits first that the contested decision is vitiated as regards the categorisation of the infringement imputed to the applicant as participation in a single and continuous cartel agreement from 1986 to 2007, and in particular as regards the imputation of the infringement during the period from 1996 to 2000, and the inclusion of the period from September 1996 to May 1997 in the period in respect of which the penalty was imposed.
   It is submitted in that regard that an infringement cannot be either continuous or repeated when the individual infringement episodes are interspersed, as in the present case, with intervals of considerable length and, above all, with positive events which are incompatible with a desire to continue or to repeat the infringement, such as the applicant’s public and explicit breaking-off of relations with the cartel, which even the Commission acknowledged.
   The applicant also submits that the amount of the fine was improperly determined, particularly as regards the duration, the gravity of the infringement and the reduction due for participation in the leniency programme.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-249/02: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAGGF — Actual expenditure of a Member State which is less than the forecast expenditure notified by it to the Commission — Power of the Commission to reduce sums paid as advances — Letter from a Director-General of the Commission informing the Member State of that reduction — Act having binding legal effects)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Case C-249/02: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Financing by the EAGGF - Actual expenditure of a Member State which is less than the forecast expenditure notified by it to the Commission - Power of the Commission to reduce sums paid as advances - Letter from a Director-General of the Commission informing the Member State of that reduction - Act having binding legal effects)
   (2005/C 6/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-249/02: action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 1 July 2002, between Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes, assisted by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete) and Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Visaggio, assisted by N. Castro Marques) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision contained in the letter of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission of the European Communities of 18 April 2002 concerning a reduction in advances extended in the 2002 financial year in accordance with Article 39(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), as most recently amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1763/2001 of 6 September 2001;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case T-237/00: Action brought on 8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds against the European Parliament

text:
C 302/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.10.2000
In particular, the applicant claims that:                                 —     make any other order as the Court may see fit in order to
                                                                                ensure compliance with the judgment, as well as an order
—    the assessment of the aid granted by the Italian authorities               requiring the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
     to municipal undertakings should not have been carried                     the applicant.
     out without assessing the role played by other undertak-
     ings active in the self-same sector — port services — the
     nature and purpose of which is absolutely identical with             Pleas in law and main arguments
     those which the Commission accepts in respect of the
     municipal undertakings mentioned by the Commune di
     Venezia and, in particular, Panfido SpA, entrusted with              The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
     running ships’ towage services in the port of Venice.                Case T-228/00 Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Porto di Venezia v
                                                                          Commission (1).
—    the applicant is entrusted by the public authorities with
     the running of a service in the general public interest as a
     monopoly and without any impact on intra-Community                   (1) Not yet published.
     trade. Accordingly, the measures granted to it are evi-
     dently required and necessary for the accomplishment of
     the task with which it has been entrusted.
(1) Not yet published.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds
                                                                                against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-237/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/79)
Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo Ormeggia-
tori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l. against Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (Case T-229/00)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                        (2000/C 302/78)                                   8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds, residing in Brussels,
                                                                          represented by Pierre Legros, of the Brussels Bar, and Stéphane
                                                                          Rodrigues, of the Paris Bar.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Euro-
European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo                                pean Parliament dated 18 July 2000;
Ormeggiatori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l., represented
by Sergio Maria Carbone and Alberto Taramasso, of the Genoa
Bar.                                                                      —     declare that the European Community has incurred non-
                                                                                contractual liability on account of the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the Parliament to pay to the applicant the arrears
                                                                                of salary and pension due to him since 15 July 2000,
—    annul the Commission decision of 25 November 1999                          together with interest on all those arrears at the annual
     on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of                           rate of 10 %;
     relief from social security contributions under Laws
     Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 in so far as it excludes from
     Article 4 undertakings, such as the applicant, which find            —     award the applicant damages on account of the non-
                                                                                material damage caused by the contested decision, in a
     themselves in circumstances identical to those of the
                                                                                sum amounting to 250 000 euro;
     undertakings mentioned in the aforementioned article,
     and order the Commission to adopt any appropriate
     measure to comply with the judgment of this Court;                   —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
By the contested decision, the appointing authority terminated          —     annul the decisions taken by the appointing authority by
the secondment of the applicant to the political Group for a                  way of compliance with the judgment of the Court of
Europe of Democracies and Diversities and reinstated him in a                 First Instance of 14 April 1999 in Case T-50/98 pursuant
post in the Directorate-General for Information and Public                    to Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233 EC);
Relations.
                                                                        —     annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision adopted
                                                                              by the Commission on 25 May 2000 in response to the
The applicant contests the legality of that decision, seeks its               applicant’s complaint No R/21/2000 of 18 January 2000,
annulment and claims compensation for the damage resulting                    by which it expressly rejected that complaint;
from it. He maintains that it infringes the rights of the defence
and the obligation to provide a statement of reasons. In                —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation
addition, he pleads a breach of the principle of the protection               in the sum of BEF 3 000 000 or such other higher sum
of legitimate expectations and of the duty to have regard for                 as the Court may consider fair and reasonable;
the welfare and interests of officials. Lastly, he claims that the
contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers.                   —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        By decision of 28 July 1999, the Commission informed the
                                                                        applicant that the Promotion Committee had carried out a
Action brought on 12 September 2000 by Lars Bo Ras-                     comparison of his merits with those of all the officials
mussen against the Commission of the European Com-                      proposed and those of all the officials regarded as most
                            munities                                    deserving of promotion to grade A 4 in 1997, and that,
                                                                        following that comparative examination, it had decided not to
                        (Case T-240/00)                                 include the applicant’s name in the list of officials most
                                                                        deserving of promotion in 1997. That decision was adopted
                        (2000/C 302/80)                                 in consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                        of 14 April 1999 in Case T-50/98, by which that Court
                                                                        annulled the Commission’s decision not to promote the
                  (Language of the case: French)                        applicant in 1997.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               By the present action, the applicant maintains that the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Commission has not correctly complied with the aforesaid
European Communities on 12 September 2000 by Lars Bo                    judgment. He claims that the Commission has failed to fulfil
Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim (Grand Duchy of Luxem-                   its obligation to provide a statement of reasons and that it has
bourg), represented by Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg              infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of officials and
Bar.                                                                    the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-97/05: Action brought on 22 February 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/27

         Action brought on 22 February 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-97/05)
   (2005/C 115/50)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 February 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA, represented by Alessandro Ruo, lawyer.
   The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Marcorossi Srl.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the contested decision which is the subject-matter of the dispute;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for registration of the Community trade mark:

               Marcorossi Srl.

               Community trade mark applied for:

               Word mark MARCOROSSI — Application for registration No 1 405 869 for goods in Class 18 (bags, cases, small leather goods, wallets, holdalls, umbrellas) and 25 (footwear, belts, clothing)

               Owner of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Sergio Rossi SpA

               Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Italian trade mark and international registration MISS ROSSI for goods in Class 25, Italian trade mark SERGIO ROSSI for footwear in Class 25, and Community trade mark SERGIO ROSSI for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition allowed

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal allowed and opposition refused

               Pleas in law:

               Misapplication of Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, inasmuch as the trade marks which are the subject-matter of the contested decision are to be regarded as incompatible with that provision.


title: Case F-149/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/46

         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-149/15)
   (2016/C 068/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step and obliging the applicant to pay compensation in respect of harm allegedly incurred by the European Union, and an application for compensation in respect of the non-material harm and the reputational damage allegedly incurred.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul Decision CMS 13-005 of the Tripartite appointing authority in so far as it provides for deferment of the applicant’s advancement to a higher step for 18 months and payment of compensation in respect of harm assessed by the decision at EUR 108 596,35;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the financial penalty contained in Decision CMS 13-005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the non-material harm and reputational damage incurred by the applicant assessed at EUR 20 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-209/11: Judgment of the General Court of of 3 July 2013 — MB System v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Germany to the Biria group in the form of the provision of a silent participation by a public undertaking — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure — Advantage — Private investor test — Concept of firm in difficulty — Calculation of the aid element — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/6

         Judgment of the General Court of of 3 July 2013 — MB System v Commission
   (Case T-209/11) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by Germany to the Biria group in the form of the provision of a silent participation by a public undertaking - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure - Advantage - Private investor test - Concept of firm in difficulty - Calculation of the aid element - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 233/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MB System GmbH & Co. KG (Nordhausen, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen and C. Geiert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/471/EU of 14 December 2010 on State aid C 38/05 (ex NN 52/04) granted by Germany to the Biria group (OJ 2011 L 195, p. 55).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MB System GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-378/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Mercedes Benz Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Mercedes Benz Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3
   (Case C-378/15)
   (2015/C 337/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mercedes Benz Italia SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3

      Question referred

   For the purposes of exercising the right of deduction, are national provisions (in particular Articles 19(5) and 19-bis of Decree 633/1972 of the President of the Republic) and the practice of the national tax authorities which require that reference be had to the composition of a trader’s turnover, including in order to identify so-called incidental transactions, but make no provision for a method of calculation that is based on [both] the composition and the actual destination of the acquisitions and that objectively reflects the actual share of the expenditure attributable to each of the — taxed and untaxed — activities engaged in by the taxpayer incompatible with an interpretation of Articles 168, 173, 174 and 175 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) which is guided by the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and neutrality, as set out in Community law?

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


title: Case C-271/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge (Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Right to deduct input tax — Obligations of the taxable person — Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices — Omission of mandatory particulars — Refusal of the right to deduct — Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced — Correcting invoices — Right to refund of VAT — Principle of neutrality)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/35

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge
   (Case C-271/12) (1)

   (Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Right to deduct input tax - Obligations of the taxable person - Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices - Omission of mandatory particulars - Refusal of the right to deduct - Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced - Correcting invoices - Right to refund of VAT - Principle of neutrality)
   2013/C 225/60
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens

      Respondent: État belge

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) — Interpretation of the rules relating to value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Obligation on the part of the taxable person — Right to deduct VAT subject to possession of an invoice which must contain certain particulars — Concept of material particular — Refusal of the right to deduct — Subsequent provision of information as evidence of the occurrence, nature and amount of the services provided — Compatibility with European Union law of national case-law which refuses the right to deduct if mandatory particulars are not entered on the invoice — Interpretation of the principle of neutrality — Effect of inaccuracies in invoices on the obligation of the State to repay the VAT levied.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the right to deduct value added tax may be refused to taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, even if those invoices are supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, nature and amount of the transactions invoiced after such a refusal decision was adopted.

               2.

               The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude the tax authority from refusing to refund the value added tax paid by a company providing services, in the case where the exercise of the right to deduct the value added tax levied on those services has been denied to the companies receiving those services by reason of the irregularities confirmed in the invoices issued by that service-providing company.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case F-132/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/22

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-132/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility - None)
   2013/C 377/51
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s request (i) to inform him in writing of the total number of working days of annual leave accrued in the years prior to 2005 and in the period from 2005 to 2010 to which he was entitled on the date on which he submitted his request and the number of days leave to which he would be entitled by the end of 2010; (ii) to take all those days leave; and (iii) to notify him of any grounds on which those request may be refused.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 23.


title: Case T-495/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/57

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite)
   (Case T-495/12)
   2013/C 26/115
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 680/2011-4; and

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘Dracula Bite’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588247

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-272/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Souzana Verkizi-Nikolakaki v Anotato Simvoulio Epilogis Prosopikou (A.S.E.P.), Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Article 155(2) TFEU — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Successive contracts — Abuse — Penalties — Conversion into an employment contract of indefinite duration — Detailed procedural rules — Time-limit — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Reduction in the general level of protection afforded to workers)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Souzana Verkizi-Nikolakaki v Anotato Simvoulio Epilogis Prosopikou (A.S.E.P.), Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis
   (Case C-272/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Article 155(2) TFEU - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Successive contracts - Abuse - Penalties - Conversion into an employment contract of indefinite duration - Detailed procedural rules - Time-limit - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Reduction in the general level of protection afforded to workers)
   2011/C 120/05
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Souzana Verkizi-Nikolakaki

      Defendants: Anotato Simvoulio Epilogis Prosopikou (A.S.E.P.), Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Interpretation of clause 8(3) of the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National legislation introducing a time-limit for converting fixed-term employment contracts into employment contracts of indefinite duration

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 155(2) TFEU and the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 11(2) of Presidential Decree No 164/2004 laying down provisions concerning workers employed under fixed-term contracts in the public sector, which provides that an application by a worker to convert a succession of fixed-term employment contracts liable to be considered to constitute an abuse into an employment contract of indefinite duration must be made to the competent authority within a time-limit of two months from the date of entry into force of that decree, provided that — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine — that time-limit is not less favourable than that governing similar domestic actions regarding employment law and does not render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by European Union law.

               2.

               Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 11(2) of Presidential Decree No 164/2004, which provides that an application by a worker to convert a succession of fixed-term employment contracts liable to be considered to constitute an abuse into an employment contract of indefinite duration must be made to the competent authority within a time-limit of two months from the date of entry into force of that decree, whereas the corresponding time-limits laid down by similar national legislative measures which preceded that date were extended, in so far as that legislation does not affect the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-570/10: Action brought on 6 December 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/22

         Action brought on 6 December 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-570/10)
   2011/C 63/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent, M. Mac Aodha, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 concerning the inland transport of dangerous goods (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 June 2009.

      (1)  OJ L 260, p. 13


title: Removal from the register of C-265/96

text:
8 . 2 . 97           I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 40/ 15
from the register of Case C-134/96 : Commission of the                removal from the register of Case C-l 79/96 : Commission
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
                                                                      Luxembourg.
(') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-l 52/96 (')                           Removal from the register of C-243/96 f 1 )
                             97/C 40/35 )                                                         ( 97/C 40/37 )
                                                                      By order of 19 November 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 12 September 1996 the President of the Court              of Justice of the Communities ordered the removal from
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                the register of Case C-243/96 : Commission of the
removal from the register of Case C-l 52/96 : Commission              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg .                                                          (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-265/96 f 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/38 )
            Removal from the register of C-l 79/96 (')                By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
                             97/C 40/36 )                             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case C-265/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                      of 11 December 1996                             Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
                                                                      Marie-Adelaide v. European Community, represented by 1 .
in Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG and Others v. Council of               Council of the European Union (Agents : Jean-Paul Jacque,
the European Union and Commission of the European                     Arthur Brautigam , Jürgen Huber and Anna Lo Monaco )
                          Communities C )                             and 2 . Commission of the European Communities
 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                       ( Agents : Peter Gilsdorf and Ulrich Wölker ), supported by
           Import arrangements — Action for damages)                  the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige Belliard and Gautier
                                                                       Mignot) and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                            ( 97/C 40/39 )                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially S. Lucinda Hudson,
                                                                       then Lindsey Nicoll ) — application for an order requiring
                 (Language of the case: German)                        the European Community, represented by the Council and
                                                                       the Commission , to pay compensation for damage alleged
                                                                       to have been incurred as a result of the adoption of
 In Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG, established at Bremen                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
 ( Germany), Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co .                  1993 on the common organization of the market in
 GmbH, established at Bremen, Afrikanische Frucht-                     bananas ( OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ), the Court
 Companie GmbH, established at Hamburg ( Germany ),                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
 Cobana Bananeneinkaufsgesellschaft mbH & Co . KG,                     K. Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P.
 established at Hamburg, Edeka Fruchtkontor GmbH ,                      Lindh , J. Azizi and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 established at Hamburg, Internationale Fruchtimport                    Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 December 1996 , in
 Gesellschaft Weichert & Co., established at Hamburg and                which it :
 Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, established at Hamburg,
 represented by Erik A. Undritz and Gerrit Schohe,                      1 . dismisses the application;


title: Case T-663/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014  — Court of Auditors v BF (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Appointment to a post of Director of Human Resources — Rejection of application — Obligation to state reasons in the report tabled by the Pre-selection Committee)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 — Court of Auditors v BF
   (Case T-663/13) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Appointment to a post of Director of Human Resources - Rejection of application - Obligation to state reasons in the report tabled by the Pre-selection Committee))
   2014/C 421/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and J. Vermer, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: BF (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 October 2013 in Case F-69/11 BF v Court of Auditors, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders the Court of Auditors of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr BF in connection with the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case F-46/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Hoeve v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Objection of inadmissibility — Concept of an act having adverse effect — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/50

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Hoeve v Commission
      (Case F-46/14) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2016/C 364/64)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Roelof-Jan Wino Hoeve (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and lastly by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr Roelof-Jan Wino Hoeve shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 212, 7/7/2014, p. 47.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2001 in Case T-339/00 R Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim relief — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 — Directive 98/8/EC — Urgency not established)

text:
16.2.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 44/15
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and B. Mongin)
                            INSTANCE                                       — application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                           of 12 September 2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                         of 15 June 2001                                   applicant on 6 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance
                                                                           (Second Chamber), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
                                                                           dent, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
in Case T-339/00 R Bactria Industriehygiene-Service                        made an order on 25 October 2001, the operative part of
   GmbH v Commission of the European Communities                           which is as follows:
(Application for interim relief — Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2000 — Directive 98/8/EC — Urgency not estab-                      1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                               lished)
                                                                           2.   The applicant shall bear the costs;
                          (2002/C 44/27)
                                                                           3.   There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene
                                                                                made by the European Broadcasting Union.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
In Case T-339/00 R: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH,
established at Kirchheimbolanden (Germany), represented by
K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and L. Ström) —
application for suspension of operation of Article 6(2) and (3)
and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the
programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal                                             INSTANCE
products (OJ L 228, 2000, p. 6) — the President of the Court
of First Instance has made an order on 15 June 2001, the                                          of 2 August 2001
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed.                      in Case T-111/01 R Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                           (Application for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
                                                                           ation of a measure — State aid — Legal interest in bringing
                                                                                proceedings — Urgency)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/29)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                       of 25 October 2001
in Case T-354/00: Metropole télévision SA (M6) v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                          In Case T-111/01: Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH, established in
                                                                           Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by P. von Woedtke, lawyer,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
(Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Objection of                     V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for the suspen-
inadmissibility — Decision confirming a contested decision
                                                                           sion of operation of Commission Decision C (2001) 1028 of
       within the prescribed period — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           28 March 2001 on State aid implemented by the Federal
                                                                           Republic of Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co.
                          (2002/C 44/28)                                   Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, a
                                                                           holding company which includes Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Geräte GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA
                                                                           Kältetechnik GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik
                                                                           GmbH; SKL Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisen-
                                                                           gießerei GmbH; Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer
In Case T-354/00: Metropole télévision SA (M6), established                Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) — the President of the Court of First
in Paris (France), represented by D. Théophile, lawyer, with an            Instance has made an order on 2 August 2001, the operative
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the               part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-442/11: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) — Novartis AG v Actavis UK Ltd (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Articles 4 and 5 — Sole active ingredient for which such a certificate is granted — Scope of protection — Medicinal product containing more than one active ingredient, including the active ingredient which is the subject of a certificate)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/12

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) — Novartis AG v Actavis UK Ltd
   (Case C-442/11) (1)

   (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Articles 4 and 5 - Sole active ingredient for which such a certificate is granted - Scope of protection - Medicinal product containing more than one active ingredient, including the active ingredient which is the subject of a certificate)
   2012/C 133/22
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Novartis AG

      Defendant: Actavis UK Ltd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Scope of the certificate — Protection only of medicinal products containing the protected active ingredient alone or protection also of medicinal products containing the protected active ingredient in combination with another active ingredient

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, where a ‘product’ consisting of an active ingredient was protected by a basic patent and the holder of that patent was able to rely on the protection conferred by that patent for that ‘product’ in order to oppose the marketing of a medicinal product containing that active ingredient in combination with one or more other active ingredients, a supplementary protection certificate granted for that ‘product’ enables its holder, after the basic patent has expired, to oppose the marketing by a third party of a medicinal product containing that product for a use of the ‘product’, as a medicinal product, which was authorised before that certificate expired.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.