title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 1997 in Case C-247/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Augsburg-Stadt v. Marktgemeinde Welden (Sixth VAT Directive - Letting of immovable property - Public authority)

text:
No C 108/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 4 . 97
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                         of 6 February 1997                                                     of 6 February 1997
in Case C-80/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 in Case C-247/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Harnas & Helm CV v.                      the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Augsburg-Stadt v.
                  Staatssecretaris van Financiën ( 1 )                                       Marktgemeinde Welden ( ] )
(VAT — Interpretation of Articles 4, 13 and 17 of Sixth                  (Sixth VAT Directive — Letting of immovable property —
Directive 77/388/EEC — Taxable person — Acquisition                                               Public authority)
                        and holding of bonds)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/03 )
                              ( 97/C 108/02 )
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                          (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-80/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                      In Case C-247/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) for a preliminary                   of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                      Finance Court ) ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the
between Harnas & Helm CV and Staatssecretaris van Fi                    proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt
nancien — on the interpretation of Articles 4 (2 ), 13 ( B )             Augsburg-Stadt and Marktgemeinde Welden — on the
( d ) ( 5 ) and 17 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/        interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) and Article 13
388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                       ( B ) and ( C ) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                   17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                       Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court             system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , President                ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth
of the Chamber ( Rapporteur ), C. N. Kakouris, R J. G.                   Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , President of the
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N.                          Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn
Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                       and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges ; A. La Pergola,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                     Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
6 February 1997, the operative part of which is as                       judgment on 6 Febuary 1997, in which it has ruled :
follows :
                                                                         the fourth subparagraph of Article 4 (5) of the Sixth
Article 4 (2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of               Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                        to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is                uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as
to be interpreted as meaning that the mere acquisition of                permitting Member States to consider that the activities
ownership in and the holding of bonds, activities which                  listed in Article 13 of the Directive are carried out by
are not subservient to any other business activity, and the              bodies governed by public law as public authorities, even
receipt of income therefrom are not to be regarded as                    if they are performed in a similar manner to those of a
economic activities conferring on the person concerned the               private trader.
status of a taxable person.
                                                                         (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .


title: Case C-617/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Haparanda tingsrätt — Sweden) — Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Field of application — Article 51 — Implementation of European Union law — Punishment of conduct prejudicial to own resources of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — National system involving two separate sets of proceedings, administrative and criminal, to punish the same wrongful conduct — Compatibility)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Haparanda tingsrätt — Sweden) — Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson
   (Case C-617/10) (1)

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Field of application - Article 51 - Implementation of European Union law - Punishment of conduct prejudicial to own resources of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - National system involving two separate sets of proceedings, administrative and criminal, to punish the same wrongful conduct - Compatibility)
   2013/C 114/08
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Haparanda tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Prosecutor: Åklagaren

      Defendant: Hans Åkerberg Fransson

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Haparanda tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National case-law requiring a clear basis in the European Convention on Human Rights or the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in order to disapply provisions of national law liable to be contrary to the ne bis in idem principle — National legislation under which the same conduct contrary to tax law may be punished both administratively by a tax surcharge and criminally by a term of imprisonment — Compatibility with the ne bis in idem principle of a national system involving two separate sets of proceedings to punish the same wrongful conduct

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not preclude a Member State from imposing successively, for the same acts of non-compliance with declaration obligations in the field of value added tax, a tax penalty and a criminal penalty in so far as the first penalty is not criminal in nature, a matter which is for the national court to determine.

               2.

               European Union law does not govern the relations between the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and the legal systems of the Member States, nor does it determine the conclusions to be drawn by a national court in the event of conflict between the rights guaranteed by that convention and a rule of national law.
               European Union law precludes a judicial practice which makes the obligation for a national court to disapply any provision contrary to a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union conditional upon that infringement being clear from the text of the Charter or the case-law relating to it, since it withholds from the national court the power to assess fully, with, as the case may be, the cooperation of the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether that provision is compatible with the Charter.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case T-135/06: Action brought on  5 May 2006  — Al-Faqih v Council

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/29

         Action brought on 5 May 2006 — Al-Faqih v Council
   (Case T-135/06)
   (2006/C 165/58)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Garcia, Solicitor, S. Cox, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 561/2003 of 27 March 2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 246/2006 of 10 February 2006 and of the reference to the applicant in Annex I;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a Libyan citizen residing in the United Kingdom. He seeks the annulment of among others Regulation No 246/2006 (1) by which his name was added to the list of persons, groups and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, to whom a freeze of funds and other financial resources apply pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation No 881/2002 (2).
   The applicant submits that the Council was not competent to adopt Article 2 of Regulation No 881/2002 as amended in that Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC do not confer on the Council the power to do so. Furthermore, the Council and the Commission misused their powers in that Article 2 of Regulation No 881/2002 as amended does not pursue the objectives of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC.
   The applicant further alleges that Article 2 of Regulation No 881/2002 as amended infringes the fundamental principles of Community law, in particular the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and respect for fundamental rights.
   Finally the applicant pleads infringement of an essential procedural requirement in the adoption of Article 2 of Regulation No 881/2002 as amended, namely the requirement that the Council and the Commission state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary cannot be determined by individual Member States.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 246/2006 of 10 February 2006 amending for the 63rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ 2006 L 40, p. 13).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L, p. 9).


title: Case T-158/99: Action brought on 5 July 1999 by Thermenhotel Stoiser GmbH & Co. KG, Vier-Jahreszeiten Hotel-BetriebsgesmbH & Co. KG, Franz Kowald and Thermalhotel Leitner GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 299/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16.10.1999
— failure to comply with the obligation to provide a state-             C. Further in the alternative
    ment of reasons.
                                                                             Annul the Commission’s letter of 29 April 1999, B/51839,
                                                                             DG IV-H-3/Kso D (99), refusing the applicants access to
                                                                             the files.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 5 July 1999 by Thermenhotel Stoiser                   The applicants are hotel undertakings in the spa town of
GmbH & Co. KG, Vier-Jahreszeiten Hotel-Betriebs-                        Loipersdorf (Steiermark).
gesmbH & Co. KG, Franz Kowald and Thermalhotel
Leitner GmbH against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                    In the contested decision, an aid of EUR 1 703 873 by the
                                                                        Land Steiermark was declared compatible with the EC Treaty
                        (Case T-158/99)                                 on regional development grounds. The aid consists of a costs
                                                                        subsidy for a hotel construction project in Loipersdorf by a
                                                                        subsidiary of Siemens AG Österreich, and the equivalent of a
                        (1999/C 299/37)                                 subsidy in the form of a property transaction (a site for the
                                                                        hotel project is being acquired at a favourable price from the
                                                                        state-owned Thermalquelle Loipersdorf GmbH & Co. KG and
                                                                        the Land Steiermark). The hotel is to be of international 5-star
                  (Language of the case: German)                        level with over 300 rooms (600 beds). A contract has also
                                                                        been concluded between the hotel company and Thermalquelle
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Loipersdorf, in which the latter undertakes, inter alia, to book
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              50 rooms daily for a period of three years, to extend the rest
European Communities on 5 July 1999 by Thermenhotel                     room in a particular section to 200 lying places for the use of
Stoiser GmbH & Co. KG and others, Loipersdorf (Austria),                hotel guests only, and not to allow any other hotel to construct
represented by Georg Eisenberger, Rechtsanwalt, Graz, with              a direct link to the spa until 1 January 2003. In return, the
an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Gerry            hotel undertakes to book at least the 200 lying places daily.
Osch, 49 Boulevard Royal.
                                                                        The applicants consider that the contested decision should be
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             set aside as void because:
A. Main plea                                                            — in the main investigation proceedings pursuant to
                                                                             Article 88(2) EC [ex Article 93(2)], they were not given
                                                                             any opportunity to express an opinion;
    1. Declare the action admissible and well founded;
    2. Consequently:                                                    — the Commission is in breach of its duty to state reasons;
                                                                             and
        (a) Annul Commission Decision SG(99) D/1523 of
            2 March 1999, declaring state aids to Siemens AG            — the applicants’ right to be informed and to inspect the files
            Österreich in connection with the hotel project in              has been disregarded.
            Loipersdorf, Austria, compatible with the common
            market pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) [now Article
            87(3)(c)] of the EC Treaty;                                 They submit that there has been a breach of primary Com-
                                                                        munity law because the Commission classified only the project
                                                                        costs subsidy and the property transaction which took place
        (b) Order the Commission to pay the costs;                      as state aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC (ex Article 92),
                                                                        but did not so classify the granting of the occupancy guarantee,
B. In the alternative                                                   the provision without charge of 200 lying places in the spa,
                                                                        and the exclusive direct link to the spa for a period of
                                                                        five years until 1 January 2003 inclusive. The Commission
    1. Declare the action admissible;                                   therefore wrongly took the gross subsidy equivalent to be
                                                                        merely 4.5 %, whereas, applying the ‘market investor rule’, it
    2. Before deciding whether the action is well founded,              actually amounted to 25.4 %. In its incorrect legal assessment
        require the Commission to produce the studies of HVS            of these hidden subsidies, the Commission also committed a
        International, Pannell Kerr Forster Associates and the          misuse of powers.
        Institut für Technologie- und Regionalpolitik, referred
        to in its decision, and allow the applicants a period
        within which to state their position in writing and
        present a counter-report on the same factual level;


title: Case F-59/13 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Rouffaud v EEAS (Civil Service — Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment — EEAS staff — Member of the contract staff — Auxiliary member of the contract staff — Reclassification of auxiliary contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Refusal)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Rouffaud v EEAS
   (Case F-59/13 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment - EEAS staff - Member of the contract staff - Auxiliary member of the contract staff - Reclassification of auxiliary contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Refusal))
   (2016/C 191/67)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Thierry Rouffaud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application to have his successive fixed-term employment contracts reclassified as a contract of indefinite duration and to have his period completed as an auxiliary member of the contract staff recognised as a period of service completed as a member of the contract staff.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in Cases F-59/13 and F-59/13 RENV;

               3.

               Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs incurred in Case T-457/14 P and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Thierry Rouffard in Case T-457/14 P.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013, p. 14 (original Case F-59/13).


title: Case C-369/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 24 August 2004, in the case of Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, mmO2 plc, Orange 3G Ltd, T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Vodafone Group Services Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 24 August 2004, in the case of Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, mmO2 plc, Orange 3G Ltd, T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Vodafone Group Services Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
   (Case C-369/04)
   (2004/C 273/27)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 24 August 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 August 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, mmO2 plc, Orange 3G Ltd, T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Vodafone Group Services Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:

               1.

               In the circumstances set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, is the term ‘economic activity’ for the purposes of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as including the issuing of the Licences by the Secretary of State by way of an auction of rights to use telecommunications equipment in defined parts of the electro-magnetic spectrum (the Activity), and what considerations are relevant to that question?

               2.

               In the circumstances set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts what considerations are relevant to the question whether or not the Secretary of State, in conducting the Activity, was acting as a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive?

               3.

               In the circumstances set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, can the Activity be (i) in part an economic activity and in part not, and/or (ii) partly carried out by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority and partly not, with the result that the activity would be partly chargeable to VAT under the Sixth Directive and partly not?

               4.

               How likely and how close in time to the carrying out of an activity such as the Activity does a ‘significant distortion of competition’ within the meaning of the second sub-paragraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive have to be in order for the person carrying out that activity to be required by that sub-paragraph to be considered a taxable person in respect of that activity? To what extent, if any, does the principle of fiscal neutrality bear on that question?

               5.

               Does the word ‘telecommunications’ in Annex D to the Sixth Directive (which is referred to in the third sub-paragraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive) include the issuing of the Licenses by the Secretary of State by way of an auction of rights to use telecommunications equipment in defined parts of the electro-magnetic spectrum, in the circumstances set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts?

               6.

               Where (i) a Member State chooses to implement Articles 4(1) and 4(5) of the Sixth Directive by legislation conferring on a Government department (such as, in this case, the UK Treasury) a statutory power to make directions specifying which goods or services supplied by Government departments are to be treated as taxable supplies and (ii) that Government department makes, or purports to make, pursuant to that statutory power, directions specifying that certain supplies are taxable: is the principle set out in Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR 1-4135, paragraph 8 relevant to the interpretation of the domestic legislation and of those Directions (and if so, how)?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).


title: Case C-22/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 17 January 2013 — Mascolo v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 17 January 2013 — Mascolo v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
   (Case C-22/13)
   2013/C 86/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raffaella Mascolo

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the regulatory framework for the schools sector [which allows for successive fixed-term contracts to be concluded with the same teacher for an indefinite number of times and without any break in continuity, in order, inter alia, to address permanent staff-related requirements] constitute an equivalent measure within the meaning of Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC? (1)

               2.

               When is an employment relationship to be regarded as being for the public service of the ‘State’, for the purposes of Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC and, in particular, within the meaning of the expression ‘specific sectors and/or categories of workers’, and thus capable of justifying results that are different from those which ensue from employment relationships in the private sector?

               3.

               Having regard to the explanations contained in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC (2) and in Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, (3) does the notion of employment conditions contained in Clause 4 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC also include the consequences of the unlawful interruption of an employment relationship? If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, is the difference between the consequences normally provided for in national law for the unlawful interruption of fixed-term employment relationships and for the unlawful interruption of employment relationships of indefinite duration justifiable under Clause 4?

               4.

               By virtue of the principle of sincere cooperation, is a State precluded from presenting to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a request for a preliminary ruling a deliberately untrue description of a national legislative framework and are the national courts obliged, in the absence of any alternative interpretation of national law that also satisfies the obligations deriving from membership of the European Union to the same degree, to interpret, where possible, national law in accordance with the interpretation given by the State?

               5.

               Is a statement of the circumstances in which a fixed-term employment contract may be converted into a permanent contract one of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship contemplated by Directive 91/533/EC, (4) in particular, by Article 2(1) and (2)(e) thereof?

               6.

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, is a retroactive amendment to the legislative framework which does not guarantee that employees can claim the rights conferred on them by the directive, that is to say, that the conditions of employment specified in the document under which they were recruited will be observed, contrary to Article 8(1) of Directive 91/533/EEC and to the objectives of that directive, in particular those mentioned in the second recital of the preamble thereto?

      (1)  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).

      (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

      (3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

      (4)  Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).


title: Judgment of the court of first instance 10 February 2004 in Joined Cases T-64/01 and T-65/01: Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   10 February 2004
   in Joined Cases T-64/01 and T-65/01: Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Imports from ACP States and third countries - Reference quantity - Regulations (EC) Nos 1924/95 and 2362/98 - Action for compensation)
   (2004/C 94/110)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases T-64/01 and T-65/01, Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co., established in Hamburg, represented by G. Schohe, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union, (Agents: S. Marquardt and J.-P. Hix), and Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Braun and M. Niejahr), with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants in the determination of their reference quantities for 1999, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council and the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 173 of 16.06.2001.


title: Case T-78/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Red Bull/OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/31

         Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Red Bull/OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)
   (Case T-78/13)
   2013/C 108/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and I. Fowler, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sun Mark Ltd (Middlesex, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2012 in Case R 0107/2012-2; and

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if they join as intervener.

      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 word mark ‘BULLDOG’, for goods in classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 215 567

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international trade mark registrations of the word mark ‘BULL’ and ‘RED BULL’ for goods in classes 32 and 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-136/07: Action brought on 6 December 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/37

         Action brought on 6 December 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-136/07)
   (2008/C 79/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Aalst, Belgium) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment, on the one hand, of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 September 2007 to demote the applicant to Grade AD9, step 5, following a disciplinary procedure and, on the other, of the decisions to suspend him from his post, to open an administrative enquiry in respect of him, and not to promote him to Grade AD 11 in 2007 — Claim for compensation for non-material and material harm
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 September 2007 to demote the applicant to Grade AD 9, step 5, following the disciplinary procedure opened on 27 September 2006;

               —

               Annul the associated and subsequent decisions, in particular that of 26 September 2006 to suspend the applicant from his post, that of 27 September 2007 to open an administrative enquiry in respect of him, and that not to promote him to Grade AD 11 in 2007;

               —

               Annul the decision of the small-group meeting of the Court of Auditors of 8 March 2007 to renew the appointment of Mr Michel Hervé on 1 July 2007 for a period of six years;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of non-material harm suffered during and after the disciplinary procedure and in respect of compensation for the material harm consisting in the difference between the salary which he received since the date of the last promotion decisions and that which he would have received had he been promoted at that time;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case T-620/14: Action brought on 15 August 2014  — Diapharm v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/49

         Action brought on 15 August 2014 — Diapharm v Commission
   (Case T-620/14)
   2014/C 409/70
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: M. Weidner, N. Hußmann and T. Guttau, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the defendant, in infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), did not request that the European Food Safety Authority carry out the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant substances with a view to the adoption of a Community list of permitted claims in respect of plant substances pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and of all the necessary conditions for the use of those claims;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   Plea in law: Infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1)

   In the applicant’s view the inaction of the Commission infringes Article 13(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006, which stipulates a definite deadline for implementation of 31 January 2010. The applicant submits that the Commission allowed that deadline to pass. The applicant submits in that connection that the Commission is not entitled to suspend the scientific assessment of health claims in respect of plant substances for an unlimited period. According to the applicant, the inaction on the part of the defendant fosters legal fragmentation throughout the European Union and is at variance with the fundamental purpose of the regulation of creating uniform rules throughout Europe.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).


title: Case C-295/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Département du Loiret, Scott SA (Appeal — State aid — Preferential price of a plot of land — Commission decision — Recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Present-day value of the aid — Compound interest rate — No statement of reasons — Complete annulment — Lawfulness)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Département du Loiret, Scott SA
   (Case C-295/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Preferential price of a plot of land - Commission decision - Recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Present-day value of the aid - Compound interest rate - No statement of reasons - Complete annulment - Lawfulness)
   (2009/C 32/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Flett, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Département du Loiret, Scott SA (represented by: J. Lever QC, J. Gardner and G. Peretz, Barristers, instructed by R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of 29 March 2007 of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-369/00 Département du Loiret v Commission, by which the Court annulled Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1) in so far as it concerns the aid granted in the form of the preferential price for a property referred to in Article 1 thereof — Method for calculating interest due on sums unlawfully received: simple or compound interest rates? — Reasons for the choice of that method and reversal of the burden of proof — Point in time at which the existence of an unlawful advantage falls to be determined
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 2007 in Case T-369/00 Département du Loiret v Commission [2007] ECR II-851;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-142/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — DHL Express (France) v OHIM — Chronopost (WEBSHIPPIING)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/33

         Action brought on 30 March 2015 — DHL Express (France) v OHIM — Chronopost (WEBSHIPPIING)
   (Case T-142/15)
   (2015/C 171/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: DHL Express (France) (Le Bourget, France) (represented by: A. Casalonga, F. Codevelle and C. Bercial Arias, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chronopost (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark No 1 909 183

      Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 in Case R 2425/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare that the rights of the proprietor of Community registration No 1 909 183 WEBSHIPPING are to be revoked and that the mark be deemed not to have had any effects as from the date of the application for revocation, namely 6 July 2012;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener (if necessary) to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-468/04 (1)

   (2006/C 60/65)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 15 November 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-468/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.


title: Case T-672/16: Action brought on 21 September 2016 – C=Holdings v EUIPO – Trademarkers (C=commodore)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/27

         Action brought on 21 September 2016 – C=Holdings v EUIPO – Trademarkers (C=commodore)
   (Case T-672/16)
   (2016/C 410/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: C=Holdings BV (Oldenzaal, The Netherlands) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, K. Neefs, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Trademarkers NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘C=commodore’ – International registration designating the European Union No 907 082

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 in Case R 2585/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision to the extent that is dismissed the appeal of the Applicant and remit the case to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-388/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2009 — Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission (State aid — Decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Standing to bring proceedings — Admissibility — Serious difficulties)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2009 — Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission
   (Case T-388/03) (1)

   (State aid - Decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Serious difficulties)
   (2009/C 69/79)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) and DHL International (Diegem, Belgium) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 2508 final of 23 July 2003 raising no objections, following the preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC, to various measures adopted by the Belgian authorities in favour of La Poste SA, the Belgian public postal undertaking.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 2508 final of 23 July 2003 raising no objections, following the preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC, to various measures adopted by the Belgian authorities in favour of La Poste SA, the Belgian public postal undertaking;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post AG and DHL International.

      (1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.


title: Action brought on 5 May 1997 by María Concepción Martínez-Ezquerra against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-152/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/ 19
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Brigitte Bennett                             consideration to the possible application             of
   against the Commission of the European Communities                        Article 31 ( 2) of the Staff Regulations,
                          ( Case T-150/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/44 )                             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                             decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
                (Language of the case: French)                               rejecting the applicant's complaint,
An action against the Commission of the European                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Brigitte Bennett, residing in Brussels, represented by
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .                                              Case T- 16/97 (').
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 July 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Maria Conception
                                                                         Martinez-Ezquerra against the Commission of the
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                                      European Communities
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly                                                 ( Case T-152/97)
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/46 )
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                        Maria Concepcion Marfnez-Ezquerra, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
                                                                         ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Willem Goris against                     — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
        the Commission of the European Communities                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                              consideration to the possible application of
                           ( Case T-151/97)
                                                                              Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                              ( 97/C 228/45 )
                                                                         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                 (Language of the case: French)                               decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                              rejecting the applicant's complaint,
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
 Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997
 by Willem Goris, residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg),
 represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
 ciaire Myson Sari , 30, Rue de Cessange.
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                          Case T-16/97 ( M.
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
 — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
      rejecting the applicant's request that it give


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 July 1995 in Case T-176/94: K v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms - Complaint - Right to respect for private life)

text:
28 . 10 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/9
(Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President,                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                                       of 13 July 1995
gave a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:
                                                                            in Case T-176/94: K v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( ] )
1 . dismisses the applications;                                          (Officials — European Convention for the protection of
                                                                         human rights and fundamental freedoms — Complaint —
2 . orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those                            Right to respect for private life)
     incurred by the Council;                                                                      ( 95/C 286/22 )
3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                        (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 91 , 1 . 4 . 1993 , OJ No C 124, 6 . 5 . 1993 and OJ No      In Case T-176/94 : K, an official of the Commission of the
     C 159 , 11 . 6 . 1993 .                                             European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                         Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Denis
                                                                         Waelbroeck ) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                         Commission decision rejecting by implication the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 applicant's claim for compensation and of the express
                                                                         decision rejecting his complaint and, in addition, an
                             of 13 July 1995                             application for compensation — the Court of First Instance
in Case T-545/93 : Heinz Kschwendt v. Commission of the                  (Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President,
                      European Communities ( ] )                         C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
(Officials — Dependent child allowance — Education                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1 995 , in which it
                                                                         rules :
allowance — Medical expenses — Recovery of undue
                                 payment)
                              ( 95/C 286/21 )                            1 . the application is dismissed;
                  (Language of the case: French)                         2 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
In Case T-545/93 : Heinz Kschwendt, an official of the                   (') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
Glesener, v. Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Bertrand Wagenbaur )
— application for the annulment of the decisions of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission of 3 February 1993 , 29 March 1993 and                                           of 13 September 1995
2 1 June 1993 declaring that the applicant was not entitled to
certain benefits in respect of his daughter and ordering the             in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 : TWD
recovery of sums unduly paid — the Court of First Instance               Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v. Commission of the
( Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli , President, and                            European Communities ( 1 )
C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,               (State aid — Commission decisions suspending payment of
has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:                      certain aids until previous unlawful aids have been
                                                                                repaid)
 1 . takes cognizance of the partial withdrawal of the claims                                      ( 95/C 286/23 )
     contained in the application, to the extent specified in
     paragraph 25 of the judgment;                                                     (Language of the case: German)
2 . dismisses the action;
                                                                         In Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 : TWD Textilwerke
                                                                         Deggendorf GmbH, established in Deggendorf ( Germany ),
3 . orders the defendant to pay all of the costs.                        represented by Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke and
                                                                         Karl-Heinz Schupp, Rechtsanwalte, Deggendorf, assisted by
(') OJ No C 313 , 19 . 11 . 1993 .                                       Michael Schweitzer, Professor at the University of Passau,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                         M. Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International SA, 7—9
                                                                         Boulevard Royal, supported by Federal Republic of


title: Case T-336/13: Action brought on 24 June 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/36

         Action brought on 24 June 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament
   (Case T-336/13)
   2013/C 252/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mario Borghezio (Turin, Italy) (represented by: H. Laquay, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and founded and, consequently, annul the decision of the European Parliament taken in the form of a declaration of its President at the plenary session of 10 June 2013, according to which, as from 3 June 2013, the applicant is to be regarded as as a ‘non-attached’ member and is thus excluded from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ as from that date;

               —

               determine the costs in accordance with the law.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his action, the applicant relies — in addition to the fact that the decision declaring him to be a non-attached member produces legal effects since it prevents him from carry out his parliamentary mandate in the same conditions as the members of Parliament who are affiliated to a political group — on two pleas in law relating to the substance of the case. The applicant submits that the Parliament is required to assess whether there has been a serious and manifest infringement of the statutes of the political group or of a general principle of law.

               1.

               By his first ground of appeal, the applicant submits that there has been a serious and manifest infringement of the statutes of the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’, since the decision to exclude the applicant from the group was taken prior to the group’s next meeting, contrary to what is stated in its statutes.

               2.

               By his second plea in law, he alleges an infringement of his rights of defence, since he was not able to put forward his pleas in his defence at a meeting of the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02: Kronofrance SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 1 December 2004
   in Case T-27/02: Kronofrance SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects)
   (2005/C 31/36)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-27/02: Kronofrance SA, established in Sully-sur-Loire (France), represented by R. Nierer, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and J. Flett, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, established in Meppen (Germany), represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and K. Ziegler, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg – application for annulment of Commission Decision SG (2001) D of 25 July 2001 not to object to the aid granted by the German authorities to Glunz AG – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili, M. Vilaras, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka and V. Vadapalas, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision SG (2001) D of 25 July 2001 not to object to the aid granted by the German authorities to Glunz AG;

               2.

               Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the applicant;

               3.

               Orders Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH to bear the costs which they incurred in connection with their intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.


title: Case C-600/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 November 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; Other party: Lemnis Lighting BV

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 November 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; Other party: Lemnis Lighting BV
   (Case C-600/15)
   (2016/C 048/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: Lemnis Lighting BV

      Question referred

   Are headings 8539, 8541, 8543, 8548 and 9405 of the CN to be interpreted as meaning that products such as LED bulbs, which consist of light-emitting diodes and other electrical components, as well as a glass covering and an Edison screw base, and which serve to provide illumination after being fitted into a lighting fitting, must be classified under one of those headings? If so, under which of those headings are those products to be classified? If not, under which other heading must classification then be made?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 April 2000 in Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95 P: Commission of the European Communities v Solvay SA (Appeal — Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure to authenticate decisions adopted by the college of Commissioners — Issue that may be raised of the Court's own motion)

text:
8.7.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 192/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                costs.
                          of 6 April 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 268 of 14.10.1995.
in Case C-286/95 P: Commission of the European Com-
    munities v Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) (1)
(Appeal — Action for annulment — Pleas in law —
Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure
to authenticate a decision adopted by the college of Com-                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
missioners — Issue that may be raised of the Court’s own
                               motion)                                                                 (Fifth Chamber)
                          (2000/C 192/01)                                                              of 6 April 2000
                                                                             in Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95 P: Commission
                   (Language of the case: English)                                   of the European Communities v Solvay SA (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Actions for annulment — Pleas in law —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure
                   in the European Court Reports)                            to authenticate decisions adopted by the college of Com-
                                                                             missioners — Issue that may be raised of the Court’s own
In Case C-286/95 P: Commission of the European Communi-                                                     motion)
ties (Agents: J. Currall and B.J. Drijber) — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                                (2000/C 192/02)
Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of
29 June 1995 in Case T-37/91 ICI v Commission [1995] ECR
II-1901, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                                      (Language of the case: French)
party to the proceedings being Imperial Chemical Industries
plc (ICI), established in London, represented by D. Vaughan
QC, G. Barling QC and D. Anderson, Barrister, instructed by                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
V.O. White, R.J. Coles and S.M. Turner, Solicitors, with an                                     in the European Court Reports)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert
H. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    In Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95 P: Commission of
composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of the First                  the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and B.J. Drijber)
Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                      — appeals against the judgments of the Court of First Instance
P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judg-                 of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended
es; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                Composition) of 29 June 1995 in Cases T-31/91 and T-32/91
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 2000, in                  Solvay v Commission [1995] ECR II-1821 and II-1825,
which it:                                                                    seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other party to
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
the proceedings being: Solvay SA, established in Brussels,                 as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of
Belgium, represented by L. Simont, Advocate at the Belgian                 20 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20) — the Court (Sixth
Court of Cassation, by P.-A. Foriers and G. Block, of the                  Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe — the Court                      Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President            Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
of the First Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                judgment on 6 April 2000, in which it:
Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wa-
thelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                 1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
6 April 2000, in which it:                                                 2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;
1. Dismisses the appeals;                                                  3. Orders the Italian Republic and the Portuguese Republic to bear
                                                                               their own costs.
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
     costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
(1) OJ C 286 of 28.10.1995.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               (Fifth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                             of 6 April 2000
                          of 6 April 2000                                  in Case C-256/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-443/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
                                                                                and of wild fauna and flora)
(Coordination of structural instruments — Internal Com-
        mission guidelines — Net financial corrections)
                                                                                (2000/C 192/04)
                          (2000/C 192/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-256/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
In Case C-443/97: Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva                Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an                  cation for a declaration that, by not adopting all the laws,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy,                  regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply
4-6 Boulevard E. Servais, supported by Italian Republic (Agent:            with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
U. Leanza, assisted by G. De Bellis), and Portuguese Republic,             conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
(Agents: L. Fernandes and J. Viegas Ribeiro) v Commission                  (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), in that it has omitted to take the
of the European Communities (Agents: M. Dı́az-Llanos and                   measures necessary to comply with Article 6 thereof, the
P. Oliver) — application for the annulment of the Com-                     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
mission’s internal guidelines of 15 October 1997 concerning                Directive and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
net financial corrections in the context of the application                EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 249 EC) — the
of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of                    Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President
19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing                   of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rap-
Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the                 porteur), J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,
activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Administrator, for
and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 2000, in which
the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1),            it:


title: Case T-624/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark ONESTO — Earlier Community figurative mark ENSTO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO)
   (Case T-624/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark ONESTO - Earlier Community figurative mark ENSTO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 129/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: B. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ensto Oy (Porvoo, Finland) (represented by: F. Teixeira Baptista, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2011 (Case R 2535/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Ensto Oy and Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-93/00: Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Alessandrini Srl and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.6.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10
                                                                           Rue Mathias Hardt.
— annul the decision of the Settlements Office of the Joint
     Sickness Insurance Scheme authorising reimbursement in
     respect of services provided to the applicant’s son, on the           The applicants claim that the Court should:
     ground that the authorisations in question were issued on
     a different basis from that argued by the applicant, with
     the support of all the relevant documents;                            — in accordance with Article 230 EC, annul the Commission
                                                                               decision notified by letter of 26 January 2000, No 02418,
— annul the consequent settlements on the further ground of                    received on 9 February 2000, signed by the Director-
     calculation errors;                                                       General for Agriculture, J.M. Silva Rodrı́guez;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           — and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
                                                                               Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a former Commission official, challenges the                — order the Commission to pay the costs in any event.
decision altering the legal basis for reimbursement of expenses
incurred by reason of the serious illness of a dependent son of
his. The applicant maintains that the son requires paramedical
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
assistance, having to be hospitalised in order to overcome
mental crises.
                                                                           At the end of November 1998, the applicant companies were
Until the end of 1998, the Commission reimbursed those                     allocated their reference quantity for 1999, based on the
expenses under Paragraph 1 of Title X of Annex 1 to the Rules              average quantity of bananas imported from third countries
on Sickness Insurance, that is to say as paramedical assistance.           in the three-year period 1994/1995/1996. They therefore
As from 1999, however, reimbursement of the same expenses,                 submitted applications for the quarterly certificates to be used
incurred in the same factual and legal context, was authorised             during 1999, and obtained certificates for the importation of
on the basis of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of Title X, that is to say          ACP bananas in the full amount requested. Subsequently
as nursing attendance at home.                                             finding themselves unable to use those certificates in the fourth
                                                                           quarter of 1999 they requested, in substitution, certificates
In support of his claims, the applicant argues:                            for importation from third countries and release from the
— that in the present case it was unlawful to apply Paragraph              guarantees provided. The present action is directed against the
     2(c) and (d) of Title X of Annex 1 to the Rules on Sickness           negative decision of the Commission on that point.
     Insurance (cost of nursing attendance at home);
— that the services in question are paramedical in nature,                 In support of their claims, the applicants argue:
     maintaining in that respect that determination of the care
     needed by individual patients is an exclusively medical               — Infringement by the Commission of Council Regulation
     decision;                                                                 (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common
                                                                               organization of the market in bananas (1), as amended by
— that in this case the professional qualification of a medical
                                                                               Regulation (EC) No 1637/98. By that latter regulation, the
     auxiliary is needed.
                                                                               Council intended to adapt the common organisation of
                                                                               the market to the rulings of the Panel and the Appellate
                                                                               Body of the World Trade Organisation, with the removal
                                                                               of the distinction between Category A operators and
                                                                               Category B operators, which was censured as contrary to
                                                                               GATT rules.
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Alessandrini Srl
and Others against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     — Illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of
                                                                               28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                          (Case T-93/00)                                       implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
                                                                               regarding imports of bananas into the Community (2). By
                         (2000/C 176/44)                                       that regulation, the Commission introduced measures
                                                                               ‘crystallising’ the situation created by Regulation No
                                                                               404/93, in its original version, in favour of operators in
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                            Category B, by fixing as the reference period for the
                                                                               allocation of the annual individual quantity the years
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      1994-1995-1996. Thanks to the choice of that reference
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     period, Category B operators may import bananas from
European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Alessandrini Srl                      third countries with the certificates obtained as operators
and Others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and                           of that category, whereas Category A operators are denied
Gabriele Donà, both of the Padua Bar, with an address for                      that possibility.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.6.2000
— Infringement of the right of operators to use their reference         Pleas in law and main arguments
    quantity to the full, as an expression of the fundamental
    right of property and free enterprise.
                                                                        In Regulation No 465/2000 the Commission states that the
— Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in so            import of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa originating
    far as the Commission created supply conditions for                 in the overseas countries and territories has been increasing
    operators importing ACP bananas that were more favour-              greatly since 1997, particularly those products with EC/OCT
    able than those for traditional operators importing bananas         cumulation of origin.
    from third countries.
                                                                        According to the Commission, in recent years difficulties have
(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                           arisen on the Community sugar market. There is a surplus
(2) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 32.
                                                                        on that market. The operation of the Community market
                                                                        organisation may be greatly destabilised by those difficulties.
                                                                        For that reason it is planned to reduce the production quotas
                                                                        in the Community. The greater the import, the lower the
                                                                        production quota. The Commission has therefore decided to
                                                                        permit the EC/OCT cumulation of origin for products for a
                                                                        maximum of 3 340 tonnes (Article 1 of Regulation No
                                                                        465/2000).
Action brought on 18 April 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                   The applicant states that it has had to restrict its activities
                                                                        considerably and has had to cease completely from futures
                                                                        contracts.
                         (Case T-94/00)
                        (2000/C 176/45)                                 In support of its action it submits inter alia the following pleas:
                                                                        — breach of Article 109 of the OCT Decision:
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    — factual incorrectness of the considerations on which
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       the Commission based its decision;
European Communities on 18 April 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, whose registered office is at Oranjestad (Aruba),
                                                                             — the difficulties to which the Commission refers are not
represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                                difficulties within the meaning of Article 109(1) of the
address for service at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route
                                                                                OCT Decision;
d’Esch.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  — the restrictions laid down in the Regulation have no or
                                                                                insufficient influence on the difficulties referred to by
                                                                                the Commission;
— annul Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 (1);
— hold that the Community is responsible for the damage                 — breach of the principle of proportionality;
    suffered by the applicant because of the fact that since
    1 March 2000 the import of the products referred to in
    Regulation No 465/2000 is prevented or restricted as a              — misuse of powers;
    consequence of Regulation No 465/2000, and hold that
    the parties are to reach agreement regarding the extent of
    the damage suffered by the applicant and that in the event          — inadequate statement of reasons.
    they do not agree thereon, order that the procedure shall
    recommence within a period to be laid down by the Court
    in order to determine the extent of the damage, and order
    the Community to pay the provisionally estimated and yet            (1) Commission Regularion (EC) No 465/2000 of 29 February 2000
    to be estimated damage, in the alternative order the                    introducing safeguard measures for imports from the overseas
    Community to pay compensation to be determined equit-                   countries and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
    ably by the Court, together with interest of 8 % per annum              cumulation of origin (OJ L 56, 1.3.2000, p. 39).
    from the date of the application until the date of payment
    in full;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-109/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department against Hacene Akrich

text:
C 150/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.5.2001
—     Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now                  (2) if so, is the Member State of nationality entitled to refuse:
      Article 87 EC): The Court of First Instance failed to take
      into consideration the legal context: La Poste is required             a)     to revoke any preliminary obstacle to the entry of
      to offer any of Chronopost’s competitors who so requests                      the non-national spouse into that Member State (on
      access to its network on similar terms, which clearly                         the facts of this case an outstanding deportation
      indicates that the relationship between La Poste and                          order); and
      Chronopost does not entail a selective advantage for the
      benefit of Chronopost.
                                                                             b)     to accord the non-national spouse a right of entry
                                                                                into its territory?
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons: The Court of
      First Instance ought properly to have explained the
      reasoning which led it to conclude — solely because of
      the existence of a reserved sector — that La Poste’s
      manner of taking into account its full costs was unsatisfac-
      tory.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
                                                                        Förvaltningsdomstolen (Finnish Supreme Administrative
                                                                        Court) — by decision of that court of 8 March 2001 in
                                                                        the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket
                                                                                (Medical Products Agency)
                                                                                (Case C-113/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court                                           (2001/C 150/23)
of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for
        the Home Department against Hacene Akrich
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Högsta För-
                        (Case C-109/01)                                 valtningsdomstolen of 8 March 2001, which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket on the
                        (2001/C 150/22)                                 following questions:
                                                                        1.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC for a national
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       agency to decide that a marketing authorisation for
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                   a medicinal product imported as a parallel import
Tribunal (United Kingdom) of 3 October 2000, which was                       automatically comes to an end if the original marketing
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2001, for a                        authorisation for the medicinal product has been with-
preliminary ruling in the case of Secretary of State for the                 drawn at the holder’s request for reasons unconnected
Home Department against Hacene Akrich, on the following                      with the effectiveness or the safety of the medicinal
question:                                                                    product and despite the fact that the product has a valid
                                                                             marketing authorisation in the Member State from which
                                                                             the parallel imports come?
Where a national of a Member State is married to a third
country national who does not qualify under national legis-             2.   If Community law imposes restrictions or conditions on
lation to enter or reside in that Member State, and moves to                 the right of a national agency to decide that a marketing
another Member State with the non-national spouse, intending                 authorisation for parallel imports comes to an end in the
to exercise Community law rights by working there for only a                 situation referred to in Question 1, what importance
limited period of time in order thereafter to claim the benefit              should be accorded to the facts that
of Community law rights when returning to the Member State
of nationality together with the non-national spouse:
                                                                             a)     the holder of the original marketing authorisation
                                                                                has obtained a new marketing authorisation for a
(1) is the Member State of nationality entitled to regard the                       medicinal product designed to replace the original
      intention of the couple, when moving to the other                             medicinal product but that new product is not in
      Member State, to claim the benefit of Community law                           the same pharmaceutical form (tablets instead of
      rights when returning to the Member State of nationality,                     capsules) and the active ingredient is not exactly the
      notwithstanding the non-national spouse’s lack of qualifi-                    same (magnesium Omeprazole instead of Omepra-
      cation under national legislation, as a reliance on Com-                      zole); on the other hand, the national agency con-
      munity law in order to evade the application of national                      siders that the medicinal products are bioequivalent
      legislation; and                                                              and that they have the same therapeutic effect;


title: Case C-121/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State (Belgium) lodged on 8 March 2011 — The non-profit-making association PRO-BRAINE and Others v The Commune of Braine-le-Château

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State (Belgium) lodged on 8 March 2011 — The non-profit-making association PRO-BRAINE and Others v The Commune of Braine-le-Château
   (Case C-121/11)
   2011/C 152/25
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Council of State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The non-profit-making association PRO-BRAINE and Others

      Defendant: The Commune of Braine-le-Château

      Question referred

   Does the definitive decision on the carrying on of operations at an authorised or already operational landfill site taken on the basis of Article 14(b) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1) constitute a consent as referred to in Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.