title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2000 in Case T-7/99: Medici Grimm KG v Council of the European Union (Dumping — Regulation closing an interim review — Retroactivity — Recovery of duties — Action for annulment — Admissibility)

text:
9.9.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/17
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              and, in Case T-172/98, A.P. Feeney, and, in Cases T-175/98,
                                                                         T-176/98 and T-177/98, S. Marquardt and A.P. Feeney),
                                                                         supported by Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and
                                                                         H. Rotkirch), by Commission of the European Communities
                        of 27 June 2000                                  (Agents: in Case T-175/98 and T-177/98, U. Wölker and
                                                                         I. Martinez del Peral, and, in Cases T-172/98 and T-176/98,
                                                                         I.M. Martinez del Peral and M. Schotter), by United Kingdom
in Joined Cases T-172/98, T-175/98 to T-177/98: Salaman-                 of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: M. Ewing) and
der AG and Others v European Parliament and Council of                   by French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-
                    the European Union (1)                               Surrans) — application for annulment of Directive 98/43/EC
                                                                         of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July
                                                                         1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                         administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the
(Action for annulment — Directive 98/43/EC — Prohibition                 advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 1998
of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products —                     L 213, p. 9) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
                          Admissibility)                                 K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                         Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which it:
                                                                         1.    Joins Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 for the
                        (2000/C 259/27)                                        purposes of the judgment;
                                                                         2.    Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;
                                                                         3.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
            (Languages of the case: English and German)                        severally, those of the Parliament and the Council;
                                                                         4.    Orders the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the United
                                                                               Kingdom and the Commission to bear their own costs;
In Joined Cases T-172/98, T-175/98 to T-177/98: Salamander
AG, established in Kornwestheim, Germany, represented by
                                                                         5.    Orders Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzot-
O.W. Brouwer, of the Amsterdam and Brussels Bars, and
                                                                               to & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV to bear their own costs.
F.P. Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,
Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH, established in Vienna, Austria,              (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.99, OJ C 1 of 4.1.99, OJ C 397 of 19.12.98.
represented by R. Borgelt, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, assisted
by M. Dauses, of the University of Bamberg, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Reding and
Felten, 2 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, Alma Media Group Advertis-
ing SA & Co. Partnership, Panel Two and Four Advertising SA,
Rythmos Outdoor Advertising SA, Media Center Advertising
SA, all established in Athens, Greece, represented by H. Papa-
constantinou, of the Athens Bar, É. Morgan de Rivery, of the                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Paris Bar, and J. Derenne, of the Paris and Brussels Bars, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                                of 29 June 2000
A. Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, Zino Davidoff SA, established
in Fribourg, Switzerland, and Davidoff & Cie SA, established
in Geneva, Switzerland, represented by R. Wägenbaur, of the              in Case T-7/99: Medici Grimm KG v Council of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                    European Union (1)
Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,
supported by Markenverband eV, established in Wiesbaden,                 (Dumping — Regulation closing an interim review —
Germany, represented by K. Bauer, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,                 Retroactivity — Recovery of duties — Action for annulment
assisted by M. Dauses, of the University of Bamberg, with an                                        — Admissibility)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, and by Manifattura Lane Gaetano
Marzotto & Figli SpA, established in Valdagno, Italy, represent-                                    (2000/C 259/28)
ed by L. Magrone Furlotti, of the Rome Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 7
Val Sainte-Croix, in Case T-172/98, and by Lancaster BV,                                     (Language of the case: English)
established in Amsterdam, Netherlands, represented by R. Wä-
genbaur, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in             In Case T-7/99: Medici Grimm KG, established in Rodgau
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10                 Hainhausen, Germany, represented by R. MacLean, Solicitor,
Rue Mathias Hardt, in Case T-177/98 v European Parliament                assisted by P. McGarry, Barrister, with an address for service in
(Agents: C. Pennera and, in Cases T-172/98 and T-176/98,                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias
M. Moore, and, in Cases T-175/98 and T-177/98, M. Berger)                Hardt v Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt
and Council of the European Union (Agents: R. Gosalbo Bono,              and G. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.9.2000
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan) — appli-                    damage — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
cation for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                     composed of: J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and
No 2380/98 of 3 November 1998 amending Council Regu-                        A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
lation (EC) No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which
duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s             it:
Republic of China (OJ 1998 L 296, p. 1) — the Court (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili, Presi-               1.    Dismisses the action;
dent, P. Lindh, R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and P. Mengoz-
zi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
has given a judgment on 29 June 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation No 2380/98 of                  (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
      3 November 1998 amending Council Regulation (EC)
      No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
      imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s Republic
      of China in so far as the Council did not abide by all the
      consequences of the review findings relating to the applicant’s
      imports of Lucci Creation’s products;
2.    Orders that the amendment of the rates of duty shall remain in            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      force until the competent institutions have adopted the measures
      necessary to comply with this judgment;                                                         of 27 June 2000
3.    Orders the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the
      applicant;                                                            in Case T-67/99: K v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (Officials — Duty of the administration to provide assist-
                                                                            ance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Scope —
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.99.                                                                                Limits)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 In Case T-67/99: K, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                            E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                           of 13 July 2000                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                            Rheinsheim, v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-24/99: Claudio d’Aloya v Council of the Euro-                     (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application
                           pean Union (1)                                   for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 May 1998
                                                                            rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the applicant
                                                                            pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials of
(Officials — Promotion — Action for annulment — Action                      the European Communities, seeking the assumption by the
                            for damages)                                    defendant of responsibility for payment of the costs of criminal
                                                                            proceedings brought in response to the submission of a
                          (2000/C 259/29)                                   complaint to the Brussels Public Prosecutor’s office — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Gar-
                                                                            cı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
                                                                            J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which it:
In Case T-24/99: Claudio d’Aloya, an official of the Council of             1.    Dismisses the action;
the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
W. Viscardini Donà and G. Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an                   2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Council of the European
Union (Agents: G. Maganza and M. Bauer) — application, first,               (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
for annulment of two decisions adopted by the Council in the
context of the procedure for filling a grade A 2 post in its
Legal Service and, second, for compensation for non-material


title: Case C-578/14: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corporation taxes — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) — Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Common system of taxation — Deduction of taxable profits of the parent company — Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Insufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/21

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-578/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Corporation taxes - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) - Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Common system of taxation - Deduction of taxable profits of the parent company - Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Insufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 236/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium), by Decision of 28 November 2014, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case C-518/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2012 — CTP v Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2012 — CTP v Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli
   (Case C-518/12)
   2013/C 26/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA

      Defendants: Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli

      Questions referred

   Does the right to compensation arise, for the purposes of Article 4 of Regulation No 1191/69, (1) only where, following the submission of an appropriate application, the competent authorities have not terminated the public service obligation which imposes an economic disadvantage on the transport undertaking, or is that provision applicable only in respect of service obligations which are to be terminated and cannot be maintained under the regulation?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1).


title: Case C-254/15 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13: City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/11

         Appeal brought on 29 May 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13: City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-254/15 P)
   (2015/C 254/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França, agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, Maxcom Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Commission on 23 March 2015, in Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v. Council of the European Union, reject the Application at first instance, and order the Applicant to pay the costs;
               or, alternatively,

               —

               refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13. In that judgment, the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns City Cycle Industries, Article 1(1) and 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (1) of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not.
   The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on four grounds of appeal. First, the Commission argues that the General Court failed to assess ex officio whether the action for annulment was admissible under Article 263(4) TFEU. Second, the Commission considers that the General Court could not legally draw the conclusion that the Council had breached Article 13(1) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (2), because such a conclusion is based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant recital of the contested Regulation and on an incorrect interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation. Third, the Commission argues that the General Court did not provide a sufficient reasoning for its conclusion, in breach of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Fourth, the Commission considers that the General Court breached the procedural rights of the Commission under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ L 153, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

      OJ L 343, p. 51.


title: Case C-167/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 April 2017 — Volkmar Klohn v An Bord Pleanála

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 April 2017 — Volkmar Klohn v An Bord Pleanála
   (Case C-167/17)
   (2017/C 178/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Volkmar Klohn

      Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

      Question referred

               1.

               Can the ‘not prohibitively expensive’ provisions of Art. 10a of the Public Participation Directive potentially have any application in a case such as the instant case where the development consent challenged in the proceedings was granted prior to the latest date for transposition of that directive and where the proceedings challenging the relevant development consent were also commenced prior to that date? If so have the ‘not prohibitively expensive’ provisions of the Public Participation Directive potential application to all costs incurred in the proceedings or only to costs incurred after the latest date for transposition?

               2.

               Is a national court which enjoys a discretion concerning the award of costs against an unsuccessful party, in the absence of any specific measure having been adopted by the member state in question for the purposes of transposing Art. 10a of the Public Participation Directive, obliged, when considering an order for costs in proceedings to which that provision applies, to ensure that any order made does not render the proceedings ‘prohibitively expensive’ either because the relevant provisions are directly effective or because the court of the member state concerned is required to interpret its national procedural law in a manner, to the fullest extent possible, which fulfils the objectives of Article 10a?

               3.

               Where an order for costs is unqualified and would, by virtue of the absence of any appeal, be regarded as final and conclusive as a matter of national law, does Union law require that either

                           a)

                           a Taxing Master charged in accordance with national law with the task of quantifying the amount of costs reasonably incurred by the successful party; or

                           b)

                           a court asked to review a decision of such a Taxing Master nonetheless have an obligation to depart from otherwise applicable measures of national law and determine the amount of costs to be awarded in such a way as ensures that the costs so awarded do not render the proceedings prohibitively expensive?


title: Case T-52/16: Action brought on 3 February 2016 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/34

         Action brought on 3 February 2016 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB
   (Case T-52/16)
   (2016/C 111/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: H. Savoie, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Central Bank decision of 4 December 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/40) setting out the prudential requirements for Groupe Crédit Mutuel.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-712/15, Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB.


title: Case F-41/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2013 — Scheefer v Parliament (Civil service — Temporary staff — Termination of a temporary staff contract of indefinite duration — Legitimate reason)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/34

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2013 — Scheefer v Parliament
   (Case F-41/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Temporary staff - Termination of a temporary staff contract of indefinite duration - Legitimate reason)
   2013/C 147/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Séverine Scheefer (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Adam and P. Ketter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Ecker, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the Parliament’s decision to terminate the applicant’s temporary staff contract of indefinite duration and an application for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Scheefer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 38.


title: Case T-270/02: Action brought on 28 August 2002 by MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
9.11.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 274/33
The applicant also argues that the Commission’s assertion that            The applicant claims that the Court should:
the below-cost selling complained of arose as a result of an
aggressive rebate policy and that there is thus no causal link            —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
between it and the applicant’s public service obligations is not                26 June 2002 in the appeal procedure R 206/2002-3;
based on any evidence and is clearly inaccurate. Further, the
Commission has exceeded its powers in the area of services in             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
the general economic interest, as, according to the case-law, it
has no authority to decide on the level of costs or the efficiency
of the postal service provider.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the Commission has misapplied                  Community trade mark           Word mark ‘bestpartner’ — appli-
Article 87 and infringed the case-law on findings regarding aid           applied for:                   cation No 2 268 134
to undertakings providing services in the general economic
interest. The Commission has furnished no evidence that the               Goods or services:             Services in Classes 36, 38 and
decision on cross-subsidisation in favour of the business client                                         42 (inter alia, insurance, Internet
parcel service can be attributed to State-run bodies of the                                              services and data processing for
Federal Republic of Germany. Moreover the Commission has                                                 others)
disregarded the fact that a purely internal offsetting of losses
within an undertaking does not constitute aid, but is merely              Decision before         the    Refusal of registration by the
covered by Article 82. It has also disregarded the fact that the          Board of Appeal:               examiner
financing of temporary below-cost selling was an economically
sound decision.                                                           Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of appeal
                                                                          Appeal:
Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has                    Pleas in law:                  —     No grounds for refusal under
infringed the principle of the right to a fair hearing.                                                        Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 ( 1);
( 1) Commission Decision 2001/354/EC of 20 March 2001 relating                                           —     No need to keep free.
     to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/
     35.141 Deutsche Post AG) (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 27).
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 28 August 2002 by MLP Finanz-                           Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Österreichische
dienstleistungen AG against the Office for Harmonisation                  Volksbanken-Aktiengesellschaft and Niederösterreichi-
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                    sche Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG against the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-270/02)                                                            (Case T-271/02)
                         (2002/C 274/58)                                                            (2002/C 274/59)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            European Communities on 2 September 2002 by Österreichi-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   sche Volksbanken-Aktiengesellschaft and Niederösterreichi-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    sche Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG, established in Vienna
28 August 2002 by MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG, Heidel-                  and St. Pölten (Austria), represented by A. Ablasser, R. Roniger
berg (Germany), represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer.                        and R. Bierwagen, Lawyers.


title: Case C-527/09: Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/27

      Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
      (Case C-527/09) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/49)
      Language of the case: Estonian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-421/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark)) — Criminal proceedings against Frede Damgaard (Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Concept of advertising — Dissemination of information about a medicinal product by a third party acting on his own initiative)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark)) — Criminal proceedings against Frede Damgaard
   (Case C-421/07) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Concept of ‘advertising’ - Dissemination of information about a medicinal product by a third party acting on his own initiative)
   2009/C 141/16
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Party in the main proceedings

   Frede Damgaard

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Art. 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Concept of advertising — Dissemination of information about a medicinal product by a third party acting on his own initiative and completely independently of the seller and the manufacturer

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:
   Article 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, is to be interpreted as meaning that dissemination by a third party of information about a medicinal product, including its therapeutic or prophylactic properties, may be regarded as advertising within the meaning of that article, even though the third party in question is acting on his own initiative and completely independently, de jure and de facto, of the manufacturer and the seller of such a medicinal product. It is for the national court to determine whether that dissemination constitutes a form of door-to-door information, canvassing activity or inducement designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or consumption of medicinal products.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-437/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 — SECURENTA Göttinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermögensmanagement AG als Rechtsnachfolgerin der Göttinger Vermögensanlagen AG v Finanzamt Göttingen

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 — SECURENTA Göttinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermögensmanagement AG als Rechtsnachfolgerin der Göttinger Vermögensanlagen AG v Finanzamt Göttingen
   (Case C-437/06)
   (2006/C 326/71)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SECURENTA Göttinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermögensmanagement AG als Rechtsnachfolgerin der Göttinger Vermögensanlagen AG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Göttingen
   Questions referred

               1.

               If a taxable person simultaneously engages in a business activity and a non-business activity, is the entitlement to deduct input tax determined according to the proportion of assessable and taxable transactions, on the one hand, to the assessable and exempt transactions, on the other hand (the applicant's view), or is the deduction of tax allowed only to the extent that the expenditure connected with the issue of shares and silent partnerships is to be attributed to the applicant's economic activity within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?

               2.

               If the deduction of tax is allowed only to the extent that the expenditure connected with the issue of shares and silent partnerships is to be attributed to the applicant's economic activity, should the apportionment of the input tax between business activity and non-business activity be carried out according to a so-called ‘investment formula’ or is — as the applicant submits — a ‘transaction formula’, applying Article 17(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC mutatis mutandis, also appropriate?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case F-162/12: Action brought on 28 December 2012 — ZZ v EEA

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/30

         Action brought on 28 December 2012 — ZZ v EEA
   (Case F-162/12)
   2013/C 86/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Environment Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to reinstate the applicant following sick leave after the date when, according to medical opinion, he was fit for work.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 20 September 2012 by the authority empowered to conclude contracts, rejecting the complaint of 21 May 2012 seeking withdrawal of the decision of 21 February 2012 to reinstate the applicant on 24 January 2012 following sick leave.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-528/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2012 — Mömax Logistik GmbH

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2012 — Mömax Logistik GmbH
   (Case C-528/12)
   2013/C 63/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Bonn

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Mömax Logistik GmbH

      Other party to the proceedings: Bundesamt für Justiz

      Question referred

   Is a rule of national law under which the provisions of Article 57(1) of Directive 78/660/EEC (1) concerning the content, auditing and publication of the annual accounts are not applied to companies governed by the law of the Member State only if the parent undertaking is governed by the law of the same Member State and has prepared consolidated accounts in accordance with the law of that State compatible with the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU)?

      (1)  Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/6

         Assignment of Judges to Chambers
   2009/C 267/12
   On 7 October 2009 the Plenary Meeting of the Court of First Instance decided, in response, first, to Mr Kanninen and Mr Schwarcz’s taking up of their duties as Judges and, secondly, to Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka’s election as President of the First Chamber, to amend the decisions of the Plenary Meetings of 25 September 2007, 8 July and 17 September 2008 on the assignment of the Judges to Chambers.
   For the period from 7 October 2009 to 31 August 2010 the Judges are assigned to Chambers as follows:

                  First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
               Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Jürimäe, Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Kanninen, Judges.

                  First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, President of the Chamber;

                           Mr Dehousse, Judge;

                           Mr Kanninen, Judge.

                  Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
               Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Jürimäe, Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Kanninen, Judges.

                  Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber;

                           Ms Jürimäe, Judge;

                           Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Judge.

                  Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
               Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr O’Higgins, Judges.

                  Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber;

                           Ms Cremona, Judge;

                           Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judge.

                  Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
               Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr O’Higgins, Judges.

                  Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;

                           Ms Labucka, Judge;

                           Mr O’Higgins

                  Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
               Mr Vilaras, President of the Chamber, Mr Moavero Milanesi, Mr Prek, Mr Ciucă and Mr Schwarcz, Judges.

                  Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Vilaras, President of the Chamber;

                           Mr Prek, Judge;

                           Mr Ciucă, Judge.

                  Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
               Mr Meij, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Mr Tchipev, Mr Dittrich and Mr Truchot, Judges.

                  Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
               Mr Meij, President of the Chamber;

                           (a)

                           Mr Vadapalas and Mr Tchipev, Judges;

                           (b)

                           Mr Vadapalas and Mr Truchot, Judges;

                           (c)

                           Mr Tchipev and Mr Truchot, Judges.

                  Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
               Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber, Mr Moavero Milanesi, Mr Prek, Mr Ciucă and Mr Schwarcz, Judges.

                  Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber;

                           Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judge;

                           Mr Schwarcz, Judge.

                  Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
               Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Wahl, Mr Tchipev and Mr Dittrich, Judges.

                  Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
               Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber;

                           (a)

                           Mr Papasavvas and Mr Wahl, Judges.

                           (b)

                           Mr Papasavvas and Mr Dittrich, Judges.

                           (c)

                           Mr Wahl and Mr Dittrich, Judges


title: Case T-209/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/37

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission
   (Case T-209/15)
   (2015/C 205/50)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Kosakowo, Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2(1) and (2) of the Decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N);

               —

               annul Article 3(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N);

               —

               annul Article 4(1) and (2) of the Decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant for the purposes of its legal representation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant sets out five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law:

                           —

                           erroneous determination of the facts taken as the basis for the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law:

                           —

                           Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of the baseless assumption that Gmina Kosakowo (Municipality of Kosakowo), contrary to that provision, granted public aid, even though the receipt by that municipality of shares in the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. (Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport company with limited liability) represented the settlement of a transaction carried out in the context of a land-tenancy contract, by reason of the improper application by the European Commission of the private-investor test, and by reason of the baseless assumption that the granting of public aid to the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. distorted, or threatened to distort, competition and adversely affected trade between Member States.

               3.

               Third plea in law:

                           —

                           Breach of Article 107(3)(a) and (c) TFEU by reason of the assumption that the making of the investments was not justified in terms of regional development and was not in proportion to the disadvantages which it was intended to alleviate thereby, and also by reason of the assumption that the aid granted in favour of the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. was incompatible with the conditions governing the operation of the internal market.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law:

                           —

                           Breach of the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU on the ground that the European Commission misused the power granted to it by reason of the disregard for, and inappropriate classification of, the applicant’s activity, incorrect classification of the aid measure, failure to carry out the legally required analysis of the ‘private-investor test’ to appraise the project for the construction of the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport, and by reason of a defective and incomplete analysis of the market for local and regional airports in Poland.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law:

                           —

                           Breach of procedural provisions: breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1), by reason of the legally defective conduct of the private-investor test; breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision; infringement of the principle of sound administration; infringement of the principle of equality before the law; and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-398/11: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2012 — Barthel and Others v Court of Justice (Appeal — Public Service — Officials — Remuneration — Refusal to grant the appellants an allowance for shiftwork — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Out of time — Appeal partly manifestly unfounded and partly manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/26

         Order of the General Court of 19 March 2012 — Barthel and Others v Court of Justice
   (Case T-398/11) (1)

   (Appeal - Public Service - Officials - Remuneration - Refusal to grant the appellants an allowance for shiftwork - Time-limit for lodging a complaint - Out of time - Appeal partly manifestly unfounded and partly manifestly inadmissible)
   2012/C 133/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Yvette Barthel (Arlon, Belgium); Marianne Reiffers (Olm, Luxembourg); and Lieven Massez (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: A. Placco, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2011 in Case F-59/10 Barthel and Others v Court of Justice [2011] II-0000, seeking the annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Yvette Barthel, Ms Marianne Reiffers and Mr Lieven Massez are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 251, 9.10.2004

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/61

         (2004/C 262/113)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

      OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

      OJ C 217, 28.8.2004

      OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

      OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

      OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Joined Cases T-444/08 to T-448/08: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006 and Others)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/34

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006 and Others)
   (Joined Cases T-444/08 to T-448/08) (1)

   2011/C 55/62
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-50/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Kurt Hesse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) — Word mark Carrera — Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word marks CARRERA — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation acquired by the earlier mark)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Kurt Hesse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG
   (Case C-50/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Word mark Carrera - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word marks CARRERA - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation acquired by the earlier mark))
   (2016/C 098/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Kurt Hesse (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (represented by: E. Stolz, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-117/05: Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Rodenbröker and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/37

         Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Rodenbröker and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-117/05)
   (2005/C 143/71)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Rodenbröker, Hövelhof (Germany), and Others, represented by H. Glatzel, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, (1) the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region as regards the listing of sites:

                           —

                           DE 4117-301 ‘Sennebäche’

                           —

                           DE 4118-301 ‘Senne mit Stapellager Senne’

                           —

                           DE 4118-401 ‘Vogelschutzgebiet Senne mit Teutoburger Wald’ and

                           —

                           DE 4118-302 ‘Holter Wald’

                     insofar as areas belonging to the applicants, areas leased (leasehold) by them or areas subject to their planning authority are affected;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are proprietors of sites which, under the contested decision, have been included on the Community list of sites of Community importance on the basis of the presence of the habitat types and species deemed worthy of protection under the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive.
   The applicants submit:

               —

               that their property rights freely to exploit their land as they wish have been significantly restricted by the contested decision, and

               —

               that this intervention is unlawful as it infringes procedural requirements and involves misuse of power since the purported habitat types and animal species deemed worthy of protection are not to be found at all or, in any case, not to the required degree of representativity or population size as required under the criteria in Annex III to the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: Case T-511/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/17

         Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Novartis Europharm v Commission
   (Case T-511/14)
   2014/C 388/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 2155 final of 27 March 2014 granting a marketing authorisation to Teva Generics for the medicinal product for human use ‘Zoledronic acid Teva Generics — Zoledronic Acid’.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, essentially identical or similar to the plea in law relied on in Cases T-472/12 Novartis Europharm v Commission
       (1) and T-67/13 Novartis Europharm v Commission
       (2).

      (1)  OJ 2012 C 389, p. 8.

      (2)  OJ 2013 C 101, p. 24.


title: Case C-61/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento — Italy) — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona San Valentino — Città di Levico Terme and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public procurement — National legislation — Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement — Right to an effective remedy — Dissuasive fees — Judicial review of administrative decisions — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Effectiveness)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento — Italy) — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona San Valentino — Città di Levico Terme and Others
   (Case C-61/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement - National legislation - Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement - Right to an effective remedy - Dissuasive fees - Judicial review of administrative decisions - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence - Effectiveness))
   (2015/C 389/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato

      Defendants: Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona San Valentino — Città di Levico Terme, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

      Intervening parties: Associazione Infermieristica D & F Care, Camera degli Avvocati Amministrativisti, Camera Amministrativa Romana, Associazione dei Consumatori Cittadini Europei, Coordinamento delle associazioni e dei comitati di tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons), Associazione dei giovani amministrativisti (AGAmm), Ordine degli Avvocati di Roma, Società italiana degli avvocati amministrativisti (SIAA), Ordine degli Avvocati di Trento, Consiglio dell’ordine degli Avvocati di Firenze, Medical Systems SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires the payment of court fees such as the standard fee at issue in the main proceedings when an action relating to public procurement is brought before administrative courts.

               2)

               Article 1 of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness do not preclude the charging of multiple court fees to an individual who brings several court actions concerning the same award of a public contract or that individual from having to pay additional court fees in order to be able to raise supplementary pleas concerning the same award of a public contract within ongoing judicial proceedings. However, in the event of objections being raised by a party concerned, it is for the national court to examine the subject-matter of the actions submitted by an individual or the pleas raised by that individual within the same proceedings. If the national court finds that the subject-matter of those actions is not in fact separate or does not amount to a significant enlargement of the subject-matter of the dispute that is already pending, it is required to relieve that individual of the obligation to pay cumulative court fees.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-560/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Finanzamt Ulm v Ingeborg Wagner-Raith (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Derogation — Movement of capital involving the provision of financial services — National legislation providing for flat-rate taxation of investment income from holdings in foreign investment funds — Black funds)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Finanzamt Ulm v Ingeborg Wagner-Raith
   (Case C-560/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Derogation - Movement of capital involving the provision of financial services - National legislation providing for flat-rate taxation of investment income from holdings in foreign investment funds - Black funds))
   (2015/C 236/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Ulm

      Respondent: Ingeborg Wagner-Raith

      Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 64 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for flat-rate taxation of the income of holders of units in a non-resident investment fund when the latter has not fulfilled certain statutory obligations constitutes a measure which relates to movement of capital involving the provision of financial services within the meaning of that article.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case F-61/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 May 2012 — AF v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Request for assistance — Psychological harassment and discriminatory treatment — Error of assessment)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 May 2012 — AF v Commission
   (Case F-61/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Request for assistance - Psychological harassment and discriminatory treatment - Error of assessment)
   2012/C 227/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AF (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the defendant’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance relating to psychological harassment of which he claims to have been a victim and application for compensation for the non-material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AF to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 63.


title: Case C-170/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 11 April 2003 in the appeal in cassation by the State Secretary for Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron

text:
C 146/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  1.    a.    Is Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 11 April 2003                               No 1182/71 ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
in the appeal in cassation by the State Secretary for                                period expressed in weeks such as that laid down by
                Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron                                     Article 50a of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 (2) ends
                                                                                with the expiry of whichever day in the last week is
                          (Case C-170/03)                                            the same day of the week as the day following the
                                                                                day on which the slaughter took place?
                          (2003/C 146/52)
                                                                               b.    Is a Member State free, when applying Article 50a
                                                                                of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92, to establish the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               time at which a premium application has been
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                                lodged pursuant to national rules of procedure
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 11 April 2003,                            which apply within the national legal system of that
received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a                               Member State to comparable, national periods for
preliminary ruling in the appeal in cassation by the State                           making applications?
Secretary for Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron on the following
questions:
                                                                               c.    If not, must Article 50a of Regulation (EEC)
1.    Must a car which is made available to a natural person by                      No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that a
      his employer and is used by him for both business and                          premium application has been ‘lodged’ in due time
      private purposes be regarded as personal property within                       if it can be shown to have been posted prior to the
      the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     expiry of the three-week period and to have been
      No 918/83 (1) of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community                          received by the competent authority at such a time
      system of reliefs from customs duty?                                           that it could have communicated the relevant data
                                                                                to the Commission on the same day as would have
2.    Must Article 3(a) of that regulation requiring property to                     been the case had the premium application been
      have been in the possession of the person concerned at                         received by the competent authority within that
      least six months before the date on which he gave up his                       period?
      normal place of residence in the country of origin be
      interpreted as meaning that the person concerned who               2.    Is Article 50a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 valid in
      has had property made available to him, albeit free of                   so far as it prevents applicants from receiving the full
      charge, in the context of his employment by the owner                    amount of the premium in respect of each occasion on
      of the property in question, is to be deemed to be in                    which the period for making applications is exceeded,
      possession of the property for the purposes of the                       irrespective of the way in which and extent to which this
      abovementioned provision?                                                is done?
3.    Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2 that
      during the whole period of six months the person
      concerned had the right to buy the car?                            (1 ) OJ L 124 of 8.6.1971, p. 1.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 20.
( 1) OJ L 105 [1983], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 2 April 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Maatschap                  Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French
Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under the name of ‘firma               Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
       Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en Vlees                                                       ties
                          (Case C-171/03)
                                                                                (Case C-177/03)
                          (2003/C 146/53)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/54)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 2 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 April
between 1. Maatschap Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the name of ‘firma Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en                represented by Jürgen Grunwald and Bruno Stromsky, acting
Vlees on the following questions:                                        as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 April 1997 in Case C-351/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München): Selma Kadiman v. Freistaat Bayern (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision of the Association Council - Free movement of workers - Member of a worker's family - Extension of residence permit - Conditions - Family unity - Legal residence for three years - Calculation in the event of interruptions)

text:
No C 199/4             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 6 . 97
     Customs Tariff (and under subheading 3505 10 50 of                1 . The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80
     the combined nomenclature) is primarily dependent on                  of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
     its acetyl content and thus on its degree of                          Association, adopted by the Association Council
     esterification. Nevertheless, it is for the national court            established by the Association Agreement between the
     to determine whether the nature of the esterification                 European Economic Community and Turkey, does not
     does not amount to an alteration of the potato starch                 in principle preclude the competent authorities of a
     such that it no longer corresponds qualitatively to                   Member State from requiring that the family members
     native potato starch.                                                 of a Turkish worker, referred to by that provision, live
                                                                           with him for the period of three years prescribed by
                                                                           the first indent of that Article in order to be entitled to
2 . A maximum acetyl content of between 0,61% and                          reside in that Member State. There may however be
     0,74% by weight of esterified potato starch does not                  objective reasons to justify the family member
     preclude its being classified under heading 11.08 A IV                concerned living apart from the Turkish migrant
     of the Common Customs Tariff and under subheading                     worker.
      1108 13 00 of the combined nomenclature.
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                     2 . The first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of
                                                                           Decision No 1 /80 is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                           the family member concerned is in principle required
                                                                           to reside uninterruptedly for three years in the host
                                                                           Member State. However, account must be taken, for
                                                                           the purpose of calculating the three-year period of
                                                                           legal residence within the meaning of that provision,
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of an involuntary stay of less than six months by the
                                                                           person concerned in his country of origin. The same
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                  applies to the period during which the person
                        of 17 April 1997                                    concerned was not in possession of a valid residence
                                                                           permit, where the competent authorities of the host
in Case C-351/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Member State did not claim on that ground that the
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen): Selma                        person concerned was not legally resident within
                 Kadiman v. Freistaat Bayern (')                            national territory, but on the contrary issued a new
                                                                            residence permit to him.
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
Association Council — Free movement of workers —
Member of a worker's family — Extension of residence                   (') OJ No C 16,20 . 1 . 1996 .
permit — Conditions — Family unity — Legal residence
for three years — Calculation in the event of
                            interruptions)
                            ( 97/C 199/06 )
                 (Language of the case: German)                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 22 April 1997
                                                                       in Case C-66/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
           published in the European Court Reports)                     Queen v. Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte:
                                                                                Eunice Sutton ( 1 )
 In Case C-351 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           (Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and
 of the EC Treaty by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht                 women in matters of social security — Responsibility of a
 Miinchen ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the                   Member State for an infringement of Community law —
 proceedings pending before that court between Selma                    Right to receive interest on arrears of social security
 Kadiman and Freistaat Bayern — on the interpretation of                                             benefits)
 the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80 of the
 Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the                                                 ( 97/C 199/07 )
 development of the Association, adopted by the
 Association Council established by the Association
 Agreement between the European Economic Community                                     (Language of the case: English)
 and Turkey — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:
 G. F. Mancini , President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray,
 P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen                        In Case C-66/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D.              of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice of
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator for the                      England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, for a
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997, in                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 which it has ruled :                                                   court between The Queen v. Secretary of State for Social


title: Case C-77/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Central Administrativo, 2a Secção by judgment of that court of 19 December 2000 in the case of EDM — Empresa de Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública

text:
C 118/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.4.2001
      (a)  to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,         Pleas in law and main arguments
           in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
           inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
           tain health, or to create the impression of any such          The Commission takes the view that the Grand Duchy of
           effect;                                                       Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures to
                                                                         implement the provisions set out in its application and that
                                                                         the existing provisions relied on do not constitute full and
      (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
                                                                         correct transposition.
           doctors or medical experts’ reports;
      (c)  to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 2.
           tations of organs of the human body, pictures
           of members of the health-care professions or of
           sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
           to health-care activities?
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
      preclude a national provision which, on the marketing of
      foodstuffs, permits health-related information such as
      that described in Question 1 to be affixed thereto
      only after prior authorisation by the competent federal
      minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is that the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Central
      health-related information be consistent with protecting           Administrativo, 2a Secção by judgment of that court of
      the consumer from being misled?                                    19 December 2000 in the case of EDM — Empresa de
                                                                           Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública
                                                                                (Case C-77/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/23)
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Commission of                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the European Communities against Grand Duchy of                          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Central
                           Luxembourg                                    Administrativo, 2a Secção (Second Chamber of the Central
                                                                         Administrative Court) of 19 December 2000, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
                          (Case C-75/01)                                 preliminary ruling in the case of EDM — Empresa de
                                                                         Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública on the
                         (2001/C 118/22)                                 following questions:
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Question 1
ties on 14 February 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R.B. Wainwright and J. Adda,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             Does the granting of annually repaid loans by a holding
                                                                         company to its partners constitute ‘economic activity’, within
                                                                         the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive (1), where
The applicant claims that the Court should                               that company’s principle activity is to manage those partners
                                                                         and, to a certain extent, also guarantee the loans contracted by
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force all the measures      them?
      necessary to implement fully and correctly Articles 1,
      4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b)
      and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c), and 23(2) in
                                                                         Question 2
      conjunction with annexes I, II, IV, V and VI, of Council
      Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
      of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the           Likewise: the performance of operations, in the context of a
      Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                 consortium as in the present case, by a company which is both
      obligations under that directive and the third paragraph           a member and the administrator of the consortium, particularly
      of Article 249 of the EC Treaty; and                               where they exceed its share as stipulated in the contract, in
                                                                         return for payment in consideration of its value by the other
—     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.              members of the consortium?
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/15
Question 3                                                                      (aa) In such a case does the one-year time-limit in the first
                                                                                subparagraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455(1) of
                                                                                Regulation No 2454/93 in conjunction with the
Is the financial activity of a company whose annual revenue is                        first sentence of Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention
far higher than that produced by the activity which is its                            or the two-year time-limit in Article 455(2) of that
principal object, according to its statutes, to be regarded as                        regulation in conjunction with the first sentence of
‘incidental’ for the purposes of Article 19(2) of the Sixth                           Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention apply?
Directive?
                                                                                (bb) Does the time-limit for furnishing proof in the case
                                                                                set out in Question 1(a) apply in such a way that the
                                                                                guaranteeing association must submit its allegation
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                under tender of evidence that the irregularity was
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                        actually committed in another Member State within
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).                                        the time-limit and, if that is not done, is precluded
                                                                                from offering that proof?
                                                                          2.(a) Under Articles 454 and 455 of Regulation No 2454/93,
                                                                                is the Member State which finds that an irregularity has
                                                                                been committed in connection with a transport operation
                                                                                under cover of a TIR carnet obliged as against the
                                                                                guaranteeing association, in addition to the notifications
                                                                                under Article 455(1) of that regulation and an enquiry to
                                                                                the customs office of destination, to investigate where the
                                                                                irregularity was actually committed and who is the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-                           customs debtor within the meaning of Article 203(3) of
richtshof by order of that court of 11 January 2001 in the                      Regulation No 2913/92, by requesting another Member
case of Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr und Logistik                            State for administrative assistance in ascertaining the facts
(BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière Tiard,                           (see Council Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81 of 19 May
Société anonyme d’assurances de droit français, v Federal                       1981 (3))?
Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt Frie-
                            drichshafen                                   (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,
                                                                                (aa) If such an investigative obligation is infringed, is the
                          (Case C-78/01)                                              irregularity not deemed under the first subparagraph
                                                                                of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to have
                                                                                been committed in the Member State in which it
                         (2001/C 118/24)                                              was detected?
                                                                                (bb) Must the Member State which has detected the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                irregularity, when claiming against the guaranteeing
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof                             association, demonstrate and prove that such an
(Federal Court of Justice) of 11 January 2001, which was                              investigative obligation has been complied with?
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bundesverband Güterkraftver-            (1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.
kehr und Logistik (BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière          (2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Tiard, Société anonyme d’assurances de droit français, v                  (3) OJ L 144, 2.6.1981, p. 1.
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt
Friedrichshafen on the following questions:
1.(a) Does the time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph
      of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
      No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1), implementing Council                 Appeal brought on 17 February 2001 by Aéroports de
      Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                      Paris against the judgment delivered on 12 December
      establishing the Community Customs Code (2), for fur-               2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
      nishing proof of the actual place of an irregularity apply          of the European Communities in Case T-128/98 between
      also where a Member State, pursuant to Article 454(2)               Aéroports de Paris and the Commission of the European
      and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 454(3)                 Communities, supported by Alpha Flight Services
      of Regulation No 2454/93, brings proceedings against
      the guaranteeing association for the payment of duties,                                       (Case C-82/01 P)
      and the association wishes to prove in those proceedings
      that the place where the irregularity was actually commit-                                    (2001/C 118/25)
      ted is situated in another Member State?
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
(b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:                 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance


title: Case C-629/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 December 2016 — CX

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 December 2016 — CX
   (Case C-629/16)
   (2017/C 104/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: CX

      Other party: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Schärding

      Question referred

   Does EU law, and in particular the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (64/733/EEC),
         Journal Officiel 1964, 217, p. 3687/64, the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement,
         Journal Officiel 1972, L 293, p. 3, and Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union (96/142/EC), OJ 1996 L 35, p. 1, preclude national legislation under which goods transport undertakings established in the Republic of Turkey may engage in cross-border commercial carriage of goods to or through the territory of the Republic of Austria only if they have, in respect of the motor vehicles concerned, passes issued as part of a quota established between Austria and Turkey pursuant to a bilateral agreement, or if they are granted authorisation for the individual carriage of goods, in which case there must be a significant public interest in the individual carriage of goods and the applicant must demonstrate that the journey cannot be avoided by organisational measures or by the choice of a different means of transport?


title: Case F-60/07: Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Martin Bermejo v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/52

         Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Martin Bermejo v Commission
   (Case F-60/07)
   (2007/C 199/100)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Joaquin Martin Bermejo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the unlawfulness of the Commission decision of 28 April 2004 adopting the new General Implementing Provisions of Article 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and, to the extent that it is necessary, the unlawfulness of those provisions of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 27 September 2006 inasmuch as it fixes the calculation of credited pension rights transferred by the applicant to the Community pension scheme;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights (1), inasmuch as the rule set out in Article 7(3) thereof infringes Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro (2) and the principle of equal treatment, as interpreted by the Civil Service Tribunal in its judgment of 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission (not yet published).

      (1)  Administrative Notice No 60/2004 of 9 June 2004.

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 162, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-435/15 and C-666/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany, Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15) (References for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Video Camera Recorders — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 — Explanatory notes — Interpretation — Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 1249/2011 and 876/2014 — Interpretation — Validity)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany, Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15)
   (Joined Cases C-435/15 and C-666/15) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of goods - Video Camera Recorders - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 - Explanatory notes - Interpretation - Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 1249/2011 and 876/2014 - Interpretation - Validity))
   (2017/C 168/11)
   Language of the case: German and Dutch

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg, Rechtbank Noord-Holland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: GROFA GmbH (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA (C-666/15)

      Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1249/2011 of 29 November 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply by analogy to products with the characteristics of the three camera models in the GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition range at issue in Case C-435/15.

               2.

               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 876/2014 of 8 August 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable by analogy to products with the characteristics of the three camera models in the GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition range at issue in that case, but that it is invalid.

               3.

               Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted, having regard to the Explanatory Notes to the CN concerning those subheadings, as meaning that video footage of more than 30 minutes recorded in separate files each lasting less than 30 minutes must be considered to be a recording of at least 30 minutes of a single piece of video footage, irrespective of whether the user is unable to perceive the transition from one file to the next during the playback of those files or, conversely, whether he must, in principle, during that playback, open each of the files separately.

               4.

               The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, in the versions resulting, successively, from Implementing Regulations No 1006/2011, No 927/2012 and No 1001/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a video camera recorder which is capable of recording from signals from external sources, without, however, being able to reproduce them by means of an external television receiver or monitor, that video camera recorder being able to play on an external screen or monitor only files which it has itself recorded through its lens, cannot be classified under tariff subheading 8525 80 99 of that Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

      OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.