title: Case C-679/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods — Meaning of ‘debtor’ — Employee of a legal person responsible for the unlawful introduction — Fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence — Determination)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
   (Case C-679/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods - Meaning of ‘debtor’ - Employee of a legal person responsible for the unlawful introduction - Fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence - Determination))
   (2017/C 078/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ultra-Brag AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 202(3), first indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person of which an employee, who is not its statuary representative, is responsible for the unlawful introduction of goods in the customs territory of the European Union, may be regarded as the debtor of the customs debt resulting from that introduction, where that employee introduced the goods at issue while carrying out the assignment entrusted to him by his employer and while fulfilling the instructions given, to that end, by another of the employer’s employees, empowered to give such instructions in the performance of his own duties, and who thus acted within the scope of his remit, in the name and on behalf of his employer.

               2.

               Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that in order to establish fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence within the meaning of that article on the part of an employer, who is a legal person, it is appropriate to refer not just to the employer himself, but also to attribute to him the conduct of the employee(s) who, while fulfilling the assignment entrusted to them by their employer with the result that they acted within the scope of their respective remits in the name and on behalf of their employer, were responsible for the unlawful introduction of the goods.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-402/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Recognition of diplomas — Access to the profession of special needs teacher in the hospital public service and local public service — Definition of ‘regulated profession’ — Professional experience — Article 39 EC)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-402/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Recognition of diplomas - Access to the profession of special needs teacher in the hospital public service and local public service - Definition of ‘regulated profession’ - Professional experience - Article 39 EC)
   (2004/C 300/26)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-402/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Patakia and D. Martin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and A. Colomb) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 November 2002 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to put in place a procedure for the mutual recognition of diplomas as required by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48 for access to the profession of special needs teacher in the hospital public service and the local public service, and by allowing to remain in force a national law and the practice of the classification committee which fails to take into account the professional experience of migrant workers, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives and Article 39 EC.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.


title: Case T-275/12: Action brought on 15 June 2012 — FC Dynamo-Minsk v Council

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/17

         Action brought on 15 June 2012 — FC Dynamo-Minsk v Council
   (Case T-275/12)
   2012/C 250/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Football Club ‘Dynamo-Minsk’ ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor and B. Evtimov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012, implementing Article 8a(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37), to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by errors of law and manifest errors of assessment because the Council failed to take into account the specific nature of sport and/or the fundamental right of cultural diversity when it imposed the restrictive measures upon the applicant which is a European professional football club with an important sporting and cultural role.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicant on the lists of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the rights of defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, including the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the right to property in that they amount to an unjustified interference of the applicant’s ability to function as a European professional football club and to fulfil its social, educational and cultural functions.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the principle of proportionality, in particular as regards the applicant’s right to property and its right of cultural diversity, in particular as they do not provide for any safeguards to ensure that the applicant can continue to exercise its sporting and cultural functions as a European professional football club.


title: Case T-684/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Weissenfels v Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability — Impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal — Personal data)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Weissenfels v Parliament
   (Case T-684/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal - Personal data))
   (2016/C 410/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Roderich Weissenfels (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and S. Seyr, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2015 in Weissenfels v Parliament (F-92/14, EU:F:2015:110), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Roderich Weissenfels to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case C-266/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran — Financial services of a central bank)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/20

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-266/15 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Financial services of a central bank))
      (2016/C 211/25)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Central Bank of Iran (represented by: M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Central Bank of Iran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-115/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Complementary direct national aid — Conditions for grant)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-115/10) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Complementary direct national aid - Conditions for grant)
   2011/C 226/10
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővarosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt.

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1), and Articles 1 and 10(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 113) — National legislation excluding producers engaged in a liquidation procedure from national complementary aid linked to the single area payment regime — Whether Member States may lay down conditions for eligibility for national complementary aid which do not apply to the grant of the Community aid in question

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Decision 2004/281/EC of 22 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits national legislation which excludes from the benefit of complementary national aid legal persons carrying out an agricultural activity in the territory of the Member State in question, on the ground that they are the subject of voluntary dissolution proceedings, where a condition relating to the absence of such proceedings has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


20150731014616662015/C 270/242992015CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150619192021Case C-299/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1910120150619EN0024191202Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)
   (Case C-299/15)2015/C 270/24Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL

      Defendants: Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)

      Questions referred

            1)

            Must Article 101 TFEU (or Article 102 TFEU) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes that provision of EC law in so far as the UEFA rule gives rise to a restriction of competition (or the abuse of a dominant position), in particular a restriction ‘by its object’ in that it limits the right to invest, which is either ‘by its object’ anticompetitive or is not necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions — or, in the alternative, which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives?

            2)

            Must Articles 63, 56 and 45 TFEU (as well as Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes those provisions of EC law in so far as that UEFA rule gives rise to an obstacle to freedom of movement (capital, services, persons) which is not necessary for the attainment of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions (and which is not justified by ‘overriding grounds of public interest’) or, alternatively, an obstacle which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives?

            3)

            Must the above provisions of EC law (or some of them) be interpreted as meaning that those provisions (or some of them) are infringed by Articles 65 and 66 of the UEFA regulations entitled ‘UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations’ in so far as the UEFA rule — even if a restriction or obstacle to which it gives rise is logically connected to the protection of the sporting integrity of UEFA interclub competitions — is disproportionate and/or discriminatory in so far as it gives preference to the payment of certain creditors and, as a corollary, treats the payment of non-protected creditors, in particular football agents, less favourably?


title: Case C-122/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 9 March 2017 — David Smith v Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 9 March 2017 — David Smith v Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-122/17)
   (2017/C 151/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David Smith

      Defendants: Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General

      Questions referred

   Where:-

               i.

               the relevant provisions of national law provide for an exclusion for compulsory motor insurance in respect of persons for whom no fixed seats in a mechanically propelled vehicle have been provided,

               ii.

               the relevant insurance policy provides that cover will be confined to passengers travelling in fixed seating and this policy was, factually, an approved policy of insurance for the purposes of that national law at the time of the accident,

               iii.

               the relevant national provisions providing for such an exclusion from cover have already been adjudged to be contrary to EU law in an earlier decision of this Court (Case C-365/05 Farrell v. Whitty) and, accordingly, required to be disapplied, and

               iv.

               the language of the national provisions is such that it does not permit of an interpretation conforming to the requirements of EU law,
               then, in litigation between private parties and a private insurance company concerning a motor accident involving a serious injury to a passenger in 1999 who was not travelling in a fixed seat, where, by consent of the parties, the national Court joined the private insurance company and the State as defendants is the national court when disapplying the relevant provisions of national law also obliged to disapply the exclusion clause contained in the motor insurance policy or otherwise preclude an insurer from relying on the exclusion clause which was in force at the time so that the injured victim could then have recovered directly as against the insurance company on foot of that policy? Alternatively, would such a result amount in substance to a form of horizontal direct effect of a Directive against a private party in a manner prohibited by EU law?


title: Case T-153/06: Action brought on  13 June 2006  — European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/38

         Action brought on 13 June 2006 — European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies v Commission
   (Case T-153/06)
   (2006/C 178/68)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: W. Rehmann, M. Hartmann-Rüppel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Decision D/201953, dated 10 April 2006, rejecting three complaints of EAEPC against GlaxoSmithKline for infringement of Article 82 EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision in cases COMP/38.181, 38.274 and 38.275 — EAEPC/Glaxo Greece (Imigran, Lamictal, Severent) relating to three complaints of the applicant arguing that the Greek subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline would infringe Article 82 EC by refusing to supply the three products Imigran, Lamictal and Severent to Greek pharmaceutical wholesalers and therewith limiting parallel trade. The contested decision informs the complainant that the Greek Competition Authority is dealing with the case and rejects the complaints pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1).
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed the obligation to give a sufficient statement of reasons. According to the applicant, a mere reference to the wording of Article 13 of Regulation No 1/2003 is not sufficient to allow the complainant to assess whether the Commission has taken into account all facts and circumstances and the judiciary to exercise its power of review.
   The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission has infringed Article 211 and 85 EC and Regulation No 1/2003 by not taking back the responsibility of a case from the Greek Competition Authority under Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to take into account that the national procedure takes too long to achieve a sufficient result, that the complaints raised new and fundamental questions of EC competition law and addressed problems that exist in more than one Member State, and that the Commission has to assure the efficient enforcement of EC competition law.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2003 in Case C-226/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of Directive 76/160/EEC)

text:
C 55/4                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              8.3.2003
and C-16/01), on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30                 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
EC and of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December                        lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                   of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of                   works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
foodstuffs (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/                 Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                        coordination of procedures for the award of public service
27 January 1997 (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 21), the Court (Sixth                      contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), and of Council Directive 93/
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second                 37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                      procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                  L 199, p. 54), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                       C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 2003,                V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
in which it has ruled:                                                       (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
                                                                             H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/112/              given a judgment on 23 January 2003, in which it has ruled:
EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising        1.    Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
of foodstuffs, as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the European                     coordination of procedures for the award of public works
Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997, preclude a                       contracts does not preclude national rules which prohibit a
system such as that established by Paragraph 9(1) and (3) of the                   change in the composition of a group consortium taking part
Bundesgesetz über den Verkehr mit Lebensmitteln, Verzehrprodukten,                 in a procedure for the award of a public works contract or a
Zusatzstoffen, kosmetischen Mitteln und Gebrauchsgegenständen                      public works concession which occurs after submission of
(Lebensmittelgesetz 1975) (Federal Law on trade in foodstuffs,                     tenders;
products intended for human consumption, additives, cosmetic
                                                                             2.    In so far as a decision of a contracting authority adversely
products and consumer goods) which lays down a general prohibition,
                                                                                affects the rights conferred on a consortium by Community law
subject to prior authorisation, of all health-related information on
                                                                                in the context of a procedure for the award of a public contract,
the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs.
                                                                                the consortium must be able to avail itself of the review
                                                                                procedures provided for by Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.                                                        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 Council Directive 92/50/EEC
                                                                                of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
                                                                                the award of public service contracts.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 23 January 2003
in Case C-57/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
from the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon): Makedoniko Metro,
             Mikhaniki AE v Elliniko Dimosio ( 1),                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
(Public works contracts — Rules for participating — Group                                              of 30 January 2003
of contractors submitting a tender — Change in the compo-
sition of the group — Prohibition laid down in the contract                  in Case C-226/01: Commission of the European Communi-
documents — Compatibility with Community law — Review                                          ties v Kingdom of Denmark (1)
                            procedures)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                          (2003/C 55/07)                                     Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of
                                                                                Directive 76/160/EEC)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/08)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: Danish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-57/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-226/01, Commission of the European Communities
Makedoniko Metro, Mikhaniki AE and Elliniko Dimosio,                         (Agent: H. C. Støvlbæk) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agents:
on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of                     J. Molde and J. Bering Liisberg): Application for a declaration
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/5
that, by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that              What is the precise scope of the eleven-month time limit laid
the quality of its bathing water conforms to the limit values               down in Article 11a(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
laid down by Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December                     No 1062/87 ( 1) of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the
1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31,                 implementation of the Community transit procedure and for
p. 1) and by failing to adhere to the minimum sampling                      certain simplifications of that procedure, inserted by
frequencies required by that directive, the Kingdom of Den-                 Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 (2)
mark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1)               of 29 May 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 on
and 6(1) of the same directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  provisions for the implementation of the Community transit
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                    procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (as
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues               applicable prior to the repeal of Regulation No 1062/87 by
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                   Article 127(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January              92 (3) of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation
2003, in which it:                                                          of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifi-
                                                                            cations of that procedure, repealed in turn by Article 913 of
                                                                            Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 ( 4) of 2 July 1993
1.    Declares that, by failing, during the years 1995 to 1998, to          laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
      take all necessary measures to ensure that the quality of its         Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 ( 5) establishing the Community
      bathing water conformed to the limit values laid down in              Customs Code)?
      Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concern-
      ing the quality of bathing water and by failing, during the same
      years, to adhere to the minimum sampling frequencies required
                                                                            Must this provision be construed as meaning that the com-
      by that directive, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of the same              petent Member State is not entitled to demand the duties owed
                                                                            from the principal where this eleven-month time limit has not
      directive;
                                                                            been observed?
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ L 107 [1987], p. 1.
                                                                            (2 ) OJ L 137 [1990], p. 21.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                 (3 ) OJ L 132 [1992], p. 1.
                                                                            (4 ) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.
                                                                            (5 ) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
by judgment of that Court of 5 November 2002 in the
case of 1. Belgian Refining Corporation, 2. Michael Gene                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
Sachs, 3. Alfred Alfons Marie Leysens, 4. André Leonard                     by judgment of that Court of 5 November 2002 in the
Elisabeth Schatteman, 5. Frank Catharina Martin Devoght,                    case of I. Francis Maria SIPS against Ministerie van
and 6. Gilbert Theo Marie Frans Dias against Ministerie                     Financiën and II. Florentius Martha Adrianus Petrus
                             van Financiën                                  Vreijsen and Vreijsen Douane-Expediteur against Minis-
                                                                                terie van Financiën
                           (Case C-412/02)
                                                                                (Case C-413/02)
                            (2003/C 55/09)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/10)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Belgian Court of Cassation) of 5 November 2002, received at                European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie
the Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary                   (Belgian Court of Cassation) of 5 November 2002, received at
ruling in the case of 1. Belgian Refining Corporation, 2. Michael           the Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary
Gene Sachs, 3. Alfred Alfons Marie Leysens, 4. André Leonard                ruling in the case of I. Francis Maria SIPS against Ministerie
Elisabeth Schatteman, 5. Frank Catharina Martin Devoght, and                van Financiën and II. Florentius Martha Adrianus Petrus
6. Gilbert Theo Marie Frans Dias against Ministerie van                     Vreijsen and Vreijsen Douane-Expediteur against Ministerie
Financiën on the following questions:                                       van Financiën on the following questions:


title: Case T-306/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Val’hor v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/12

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Val’hor v Commission
   (Case T-306/09)
   2009/C 244/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Val’hor (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008 in which the Commission found that the umbrella scheme likely to be run by the inter-branch organisations of French farmers (organisations interprofessionnelles agricoles françaises), consisting in aids for technical assistance; for the production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products; for research and development, and for advertising which promotes primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by ministerial decree, levied on members of those inter-branch organisations, constitutes State aid which is compatible with the common market.
   The pleas and principal submissions relied upon the by the applicant are substantially the same as, or similar to, those put forward in the context of Cases T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission, and T-302/09 CNIPT v Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.


title: Case C-215/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Iwona Szyrocka v SiGer Technologie GmbH (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Application for an order which does not comply with the formal requirements laid down by national law — Exhaustive nature of the requirements to be met by the application — Whether it is possible to claim the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Iwona Szyrocka v SiGer Technologie GmbH
   (Case C-215/11) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Application for an order which does not comply with the formal requirements laid down by national law - Exhaustive nature of the requirements to be met by the application - Whether it is possible to claim the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal)
   2013/C 38/04
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iwona Szyrocka

      Defendant: SiGer Technologie GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Interpretation of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) — Application for a European order for payment not complying with the formal requirements laid down by the regulation on the one hand, and by national legislation on the other — Law applicable to the procedure for completion or rectification of the application — Possibility of claiming interest on the debt from the date upon which interest becomes due until the date of payment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure must be interpreted as governing exhaustively the requirements to be met by an application for a European order for payment.
               Pursuant to Article 25 of that regulation and subject to the conditions laid down therein, the national court remains free to determine the amount of the court fees in accordance with rules laid down by domestic law, provided that those rules are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and do not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by European Union law.

               2.

               Articles 4 and 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1896/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding a claimant from demanding, in an application for a European order for payment, interest for the period from the date on which it falls due until the date of payment of the principal.

               3.

               Where the defendant is ordered to pay to the claimant the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal, the national court is free to determine the way in which the European order for payment form, set out in Annex V to Regulation No 1896/2006, is to be completed in practice, provided that the form thus completed enables the defendant, first, to be fully aware of the decision that he is required to pay the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal and, second, to identify clearly the rate of interest and the date from which that interest is claimed.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 14 July 1998 in Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the European Communities (Staff committee - Procedures - Amendment of the staff committee rules - General assembly - Electoral system - Admissibility)

text:
C 299/32              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26.9.98
judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is           3. the remainder of the action is dismissed;
as follows:
                                                                   4. the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
1. the action is dismissed;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
2. each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          in Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
                      (Second Chamber)                                               European Communities (1)
                       of 16 July 1998                             (Staff committee Ð Procedures Ð Amendment of the staff
in Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri v. Commission of the             committee rules Ð General assembly Ð Electoral system
                  European Communities (1)                                                Ð Admissibility)
(Officials Ð Secondment in the interest of the service Ð                                    (98/C 299/53)
Temporary posting Ð Entitlement to secondment                                     (Language of the case: French)
 differential allowance Ð Discretion of the administration)
                        (98/C 299/52)                              In Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef, an official at the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                (Language of the case: French)                     Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
                                                                   BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
In Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri, an official of the              service in Luxembourg at his Chambers at 4, rue de
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                l'Avenir, against the Commission of the European
Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge          Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Currall) Ð application for the annulment, in whole or in
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de Nassau, against the           part, of the genral assembly of the staff of the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian             Commission assigned to Luxembourg of 5 December 1995
Currall and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for                    and of the decision to amend the staff committee rules
annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of             adopted by that assembly as well as all other subsequent
12 December 1995 rejecting the applicant's request to              acts adopted pursuant to that decision Ð the Court of
have the temporary duties taken on by him recognised and           First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
for payment of the differential allowance and, second, of          President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
the decision of the Commission of 24 July 1996 declaring           Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
that the applicant is acting as head of division of Unit 4         gave a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
(Common Customs Tariff), Directorate B (Customs),
                                                                   1. dismisses the action;
Directorate General XXI (Customs and Direct Taxation)
and recognising the temporary nature of the posting in so          2. the parties shall bear their own costs.
far as the date on which that decision is to take effect is
set at 1 August 1996 for a fixed term of one year and not          (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
for an indefinite period as from 29 October 1992 Ð the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.
Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is
as follows:                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
1. the decisions of the Commission of 12 December 1995
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
     and 24 July 1996 are annulled except in so far as the
     second decision recognises the temporary nature of the        in Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
     applicant's posting;                                          derm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2. the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the           (Cosmetic products Ð Directive 76/768/EEC Ð Directive
     monthly differential allowance referred to in                 95/34/EC Ð Sun-creams and bronzing-products Ð Public
     Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations to which he                health Ð Non-contractual liability of the Community)
     would have been entitled if he had been called on to
     occupy, temporarily, the post of Head of Unit XXI.B.4                                  (98/C 299/54)
     on 24 March 1993, together with default interest at                          (Language of the case: French)
     the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from the dates
     on which those payments should have been made and             In Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
     until complete payment is made;                               derm SA, established at Rungis (France), and Jean-Jacques


title: Case T-31/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  — Procter & Gamble v OHIM

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/34

         Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM
   (Case T-31/06)
   (2006/C 86/70)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: G. Kuipers, lawyer]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 16 November 2005 (Case R 1183/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 23 November 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark in form of a square white tablet showing a lilac five petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations for the washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps) — application No 1 683 457

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case F-47/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011 — Hecq v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Occupational disease — Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations — Correctness of the opinion of the medical committee — Refusal to accept that the applicant suffers from partial permanent invalidity)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011 — Hecq v Commission
   (Case F-47/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Social security - Occupational disease - Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations - Correctness of the opinion of the medical committee - Refusal to accept that the applicant suffers from partial permanent invalidity)
   2011/C 362/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, and J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the Commission decisions refusing to accept that the applicant suffers from partial permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and making him liable for part of the fees and expenses incurred during the proceedings of the medical committee.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the decisions of European Commission of 7 September 2009 in so far as they require Mr Hecq to pay the costs and fees of the doctor whom he nominated to represent him in the medical committee and half of the costs and fees of the third doctor in the medical committee nominated by mutual agreement;

               2.

               Dismisses the claims for annulment of the decisions of 7 September 2009 in so far as they refuse to award Mr Hecq a rate of permanent invalidity as unfounded;

               3.

               Orders Mr Hecq to pay the entirety of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010, p. 61.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 55, 8.3.2003

text:
22.3.2003         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         C 70/35
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                     (2003/C 70/54)
                 Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
          OJ C 55, 8.3.2003
          Past publications
          OJ C 44, 22.2.2003
          OJ C 31, 8.2.2003
          OJ C 19, 25.1.2003
          OJ C 7, 11.1.2003
          OJ C 323, 21.12.2002
          OJ C 305, 7.12.2002
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-40/09: Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Časta v Commission

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/51

         Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Časta v Commission
   (Case F-40/09)
   2009/C 153/99
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Radek Časta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Tahotná, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, an application for annulment of EPSO’s decision not to admit the applicant to the oral tests in open competition EPSO/AD/107/07-LAW on account of the fact that the condition relating to 3 years’ experience in a senior management post was not met. Secondly, an application for an order that the defendant pay the applicant a sum in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decision No R/45715/08 of 22 December 2008;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 20 000, in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered, plus interest for late payment from 9 June 2008 until 15 days after the judgment has acquired the binding authority of a judgment which has become definitive;

               —

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


title: Case C-246/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/31

         Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-246/15 P)
   (2015/C 236/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Heithecker, J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Land Hessen

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal, in so far as it dismissed the third plea in law relating to the investment grant and the sale of public land;

               —

               annul paragraphs 3 to 5 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order the Commission and the Land Hessen to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

         In addition, the appellant’s requests made at first instance should be granted in so far as it claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2008)6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, in so far as it found that the notified regional aid is an existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999;

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2008)6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, in so far as it found that the sale of public land does not amount to aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present proceedings concern the conditions under which the Commission may reject a complaint concerning State aid brought by a direct competitor of the recipient of the aid, without opening the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU.
   The appellant claims that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court should have upheld the third plea in law, which complained that the investigation procedure was not opened, not only — as happened in that proceedings — in relation to the contested aid measure in the form of guarantees, but also in relation to the further contested aid measures and the sale of public land.
   The appellant puts forward five grounds of appeal:

               1.

               The General Court wrongly held in relation to the investment grant that the decision of 6 December 2007 is irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the third plea in law since the Commission could not have known about the existence of that decision despite carrying out a successful detailed examination during the administrative procedure, and in addition that decision could not have had any impact on the result of the Commission’s examination.

               2.

               The General Court made a manifest error of assessment and committed several further errors of law in so far as it held that the expert report regarding the value of the public land put at the disposal of the aid recipient affects the expert opinion that the buildings on the land have no value.

               3.

               The General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was correct to assume that the amount of EUR 1 4 00  000, which was deducted from the price of the land as evaluated by the expert report, corresponded to the market price for the demolition of all the buildings situated on the land transferred to the aid recipient.

               4.

               The General Court made several errors of law in the examination of Paragraph 4(6) of the contract for the sale of the land, which provides that the aid recipient must demolish all the buildings situated on the land and must pay back payments to the seller of the land in the event that, within 10 years of the transfer thereof, the demolition is incomplete or that the ordinary costs of demolition are below the stated amount of EUR 1 4 00  000.

               5.

               The General Court wrongly ordered the appellant to pay part of the costs of the proceedings, because the action was upheld with respect to three of the five contested aid measures and, with respect to the other two contested aid measures, the appellant only brought an action against them because neither the documents produced to it during the administrative procedure nor the Commission decision contained detailed information concerning those measures.


title: Case T-651/16: Action brought on 14 September 2016 — Crocs v EUIPO — Gifi Diffusion (Footwear)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/23

         Action brought on 14 September 2016 — Crocs v EUIPO — Gifi Diffusion (Footwear)
   (Case T-651/16)
   (2016/C 410/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Crocs, Inc. (Niwot, Colorado, United States) (represented by: J. Guise, D. Knight, L. Cassidy, H. Seymour, Solicitors, M. Berger, N. Hadjadj Cazier, H. Haouideg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design ‘Footwear’ — Community design No 257 001-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 06/06/2016 in Case R 853/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and find that the website disclosures did not constitute a prior disclosure within the meaning of Article 7; upheld the contested registered Community design and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;

               —

               make an award of costs in its favour.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-275/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others v Vlaamse Gewest (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Airports with a runway length of 2100 metres or more — Concept of ‘construction’ — Renewal of operating permit)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others v Vlaamse Gewest
   (Case C-275/09) (1)

   (Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Airports with a runway length of 2 100 metres or more - Concept of ‘construction’ - Renewal of operating permit)
   2011/C 139/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, P. De Donder, F. De Becker, K. Colenbie, Ph. Hutsenbaut, B. Kockaert, VZW Boreas, F. Petit, V.S. de Burbure de Wezembeek, L. Van Dessel

      Defendant: Vlaamse Gewest

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België — Interpretation of Annex I, paragraph 7(a), to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Construction of airports with a runway length of 2 100 metres or more — Concept of ‘construction’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second indent of Article 1(2) of, and point 7 of Annex 1 to, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, are to be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               the renewal of an existing permit to operate an airport cannot, in the absence of any works or interventions involving alterations to the physical aspect of the site, be classified as a ‘project’ or‘construction’, respectively, within the meaning of those provisions;

               —

               however, it is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the national legislation applicable and taking account, where appropriate, of the cumulative effect of a number of works or interventions carried out since the entry into force of the directive, whether that permit forms part of a consent procedure carried out in several stages, the ultimate purpose of which is to enable activities which constitute a project within the meaning of the first indent of point 13 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to the directive to be carried out. If no assessment of the environmental effects of such works or interventions was carried out at the earlier stage in the consent procedure, it would be for the national court to ensure that the directive was effective by satisfying itself that such an assessment was carried out at the very least at the stage at which the operating permit was to be granted.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-186/07: Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Ashoka v OHIM (DREAM IT, DO IT!)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/34

         Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Ashoka v OHIM (DREAM IT, DO IT!)
   (Case T-186/07)
   (2007/C 170/67)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ashoka (Arlington, United States) (represented by: A. Link and A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 March 2007 (Case R 635/2006-1);

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DREAM IT, DO IT!’ for services in classes 35, 36, 41 and 45 — application No 3 844 792

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark applied for will be perceived by the relevant public as coming from a particular undertaking since it has not become customary in the current language or in the practices of trade as a designation of the services covered by it.


title: Case T-301/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 — in ‘t Veld v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the draft international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) — Negotiating documents — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest with regard to international relations — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 — in ‘t Veld v Commission
   (Case T-301/10) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the draft international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Negotiating documents - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest with regard to international relations - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 129/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sophie in ‘t Veld (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Hermes and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by: Mr Hermes and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, initially, for partial annulment of the Commission Decision of 4 May 2010, reference SG.E.3/HP/psi — Ares(2010)234950, in so far as it refused access to certain documents relating to the draft international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision of 4 May 2010, reference SG.E.3/HP/psi — Ares(2010)234950, in so far as it refuses to grant access to documents 21 and 25 of the list annexed to that decision and to the following redactions made on other documents of that list:

                           —

                           document 45, page 2, under the heading ‘Participants’, second paragraph, last sentence;

                           —

                           document 47, page 1, under ‘Participants’ second paragraph, last sentence;

                           —

                           document 47, page 2, under ‘1. Digital Environment (including Internet)’, second paragraph, last sentence;

                           —

                           document 48, page 2, the paragraph under Section 4, end of sentence.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders Sophie in ‘t Veld to bear half of her own costs and half of the costs of the European Commission.

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear half of its costs and half of Ms in ‘t Veld’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case C-356/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel, Belgium) — Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG v Etablissementen Franz Colruyt NV (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Misleading advertising — Comparative advertising — Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted — Comparison of the general level of the prices charged by chains of stores — Comparison of the prices of a selection of products)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel, Belgium) — Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG v Etablissementen Franz Colruyt NV
   (Case C-356/04) (1)

   (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC - Misleading advertising - Comparative advertising - Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted - Comparison of the general level of the prices charged by chains of stores - Comparison of the prices of a selection of products)
   (2006/C 281/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG

      Defendant: Etablissementen Franz Colruyt NV
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 3a(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as inserted by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — Comparative advertising — Comparison of the general level of prices of an advertiser with that of its competitors without any indication as to which products have been compared in regard to their prices.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The condition under which comparative advertising is permissible that is laid down by Article 3a(1)(b) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, must be interpreted as not precluding comparative advertising from relating collectively to selections of basic consumables sold by two competing chains of stores in so far as those selections each consist of individual products which, when viewed in pairs, individually satisfy the requirement of comparability laid down by that provision.

               2.

               Article 3a(1)(c) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement, laid down by that provision, that the advertising ‘objectively compares’ the features of the goods at issue does not signify, in the event of comparison of the prices of a selection of comparable basic consumables sold by competing chains of stores or of the general level of the prices charged by them in respect of the range of comparable products which they sell, that the products and prices compared, that is to say both those of the advertiser and those of all of his competitors involved in the comparison, must be expressly and exhaustively listed in the advertisement.

               3.

               Article 3a(1)(c) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that the following constitute, for the purposes of that provision, ‘verifiable’ features of goods sold by two competing chains of stores:

                           —

                           the prices of those goods;

                           —

                           the general level of the respective prices charged by such chains of stores in respect of their selection of comparable products and the amount liable to be saved by consumers who purchase such products from one rather than the other of those chains, in so far as the goods in question do in fact form part of the selection of comparable products on whose basis that general price level has been determined.

               4.

               Article 3a(1)(c) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that a feature mentioned in comparative advertising satisfies the requirement of verifiability laid down by that provision, in cases where the details of the comparison which form the basis for the mention of that feature are not set out in the advertising, only if the advertiser indicates, in particular for the attention of the persons to whom the advertisement is addressed, where and how they may readily examine those details with a view to verifying, or, if they do not possess the skill required for that purpose, to having verified, the details and the feature in question as to their accuracy.

               5.

               Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that comparative advertising claiming that the advertiser's general price level is lower than his main competitors', where the comparison has related to a sample of products, may be misleading when the advertisement:

                           —

                           does not reveal that the comparison related only to such a sample and not to all the advertiser's products,

                           —

                           does not identify the details of the comparison made or inform the persons to whom it is addressed of the information source where such identification is possible, or

                           —

                           contains a collective reference to a range of amounts that may be saved by consumers who make their purchases from the advertiser rather than from his competitors without specifying individually the general level of the prices charged, respectively, by each of those competitors and the amount that consumers are liable to save by making their purchases from the advertiser rather than from each of the competitors.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-365/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Simesa SpA v Ministero della Salute and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Simesa SpA v Ministero della Salute and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others
   (Case C-365/07)
   (2007/C 247/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Simesa SpA

      Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case T-273/13: Action brought on 17 May 2013 — Sarafraz v Council

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/48

         Action brought on 17 May 2013 — Sarafraz v Council
   (Case T-273/13)
   2013/C 207/79
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohammad Sarafraz (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. Walter, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 206/2013 of 11 March 2013 implementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran in so far as it concerns Mr Mohammad Sarafraz;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence

                           —

                           The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and, in particular, the requirement to state reasons by not providing a sufficient statement of reasons for the applicant’s inclusion in the Annex to the contested implementing regulation;

                           —

                           The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a fair hearing by not giving the applicant the opportunity, provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (1), to present observations on his inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions and thereby to initiate a review by the Council.

               2.

               Second plea in law: there is no basis for the applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions

                           —

                           The reasons which the Council gave for the applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions do not show precisely which legal basis the Council is relying on in this connection;

                           —

                           The Council obviously assessed the facts incorrectly by including the applicant in the list in the Annex to the contested implementing regulation;

                           —

                           In particular, the only actual reason given by the Council in the list of persons subject to sanctions cannot justify the applicant’s inclusion in that list.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the ne bis in idem principle

                           —

                           The only actual reason given by the Council for the applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions has already been the subject-matter of a sanction by the British media supervisory body;

                           —

                           The Council does not submit that further infringements of the law took place in spite of or after that sanction which would justify the applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of broadcasting or to hold opinions, freedom of movement and freedom of ownership

                           —

                           The applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of his media freedom and freedom to hold opinions, which is aimed in particular, at hindering the applicant or the broadcasting organisation of which he is in charge in reporting to and from Europe;

                           —

                           The applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of other protected fundamental rights (freedom of ownership, freedom of occupation, freedom of movement).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2011 L 100, p. 1).


title: Case T-199/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/38

         Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO
   (Case T-199/17)
   (2017/C 161/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: QD (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of EUIPO of 2 June 2016, notified to the applicant on 3 June 2016, to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a temporary Agent pursuant to Article 2(f) CEOS; and

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Article 110 SR, Article 2(f) and 8 CEOS.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty and its duty of care.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR)).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27(1) and (2)(b).

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the legitimate expectations of the applicant.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 008, 2001, p. 1)


title: Case T-454/10: Action brought on 30 September 2010 — Anicav v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/39

         Action brought on 30 September 2010 — Anicav v Commission
   (Case T-454/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) (Naples, Italy), (represented by: J. da Cruz Vilaça, S. Estima Martins and S. Carvalho de Sousa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the provisions of Article 52 and Annex VIII of Commission Regulation No 1580/2007 (1) as amended by Commission Regulation No 687/2010 (2); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the partial annulment of Commission Regulation No 1580/2007 as amended by Commission Regulation No 687/2010.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant alleges that the contested measure breaches the Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (the ‘Single CMO Regulation’) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

               By failing to (i) include processing activities in Annex VIII of Commission Regulation No 1580/2007 and to (ii) exclude preparation, packaging and post-processing activities from the value of marketed production of products intended to be processed, the contested measure breaches the Single CMO Regulation, in so far as the latter establishes that the provisions on producer organisations, namely the granting of aid, shall apply only to products covered by the common market organisation for fruit and vegetables.

               Secondly, ther applicant alleges that the contested measure breaches the principle of non-discrimination; by granting to producer organisations aid that covers industrial operations also carried out by private industries, the contested measure breaches the principle of non-discrimination which prohibits treating comparable situations differently, unless such treatment is objectively justified.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the contested measure breaches the principle of proportionality; by granting to producer organisations aid that covers industrial operations also carried out by private industries, the contested measure breaches the principle of proportionality in so far as it exceeds what would be necessary to achieve a hypothetical objective of the Common Agricultural Policy related to the vertical integration of producer organisations.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2010 L 199, p. 12).


title: Case T-511/08: Order of the General Court of 13 April 2010 — Unity OSG FZE v Council

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/56

      Order of the General Court of 13 April 2010 — Unity OSG FZE v Council
      (Case T-511/08) (1)

      (2010/C 161/90)

         Language of the case: English

      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case C-520/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 November 2014  — Gemeente Borsele, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 November 2014 — Gemeente Borsele, Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-520/14)
   (2015/C 056/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants in cassation: Gemeente Borsele, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1)

               Should Article 2(1)(c) and Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the transport of school pupils, on the basis of an arrangement as described in the present judgment, a municipality should to this extent be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of that directive?

               2)

               For the purpose of answering that question, should the arrangement as a whole be considered, or should this assessment be made for each transport operation separately?

               3)

               If the latter is the case, should a distinction be made according to whether pupils are transported over a distance of between 6 and 20 kilometres or over a distance exceeding 20 kilometres?

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