C 352/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-42/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-323/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 352/50)                                                     (1999/C 352/52)
By order of 7 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities has ordered the removal from the             By order of 14 September 1999 the President of the Court of
register of Case-42/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Johann Seemeier and Jörg            from the register of Case C-323/98 (reference for a preliminary
Schreiber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salz-            ruling from Tribunale civile e penale, Verona): Idropi SpA v
burg and Jörg Schreiber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für           MTMD — Lydis Megatherm Magneta SA.
Kärnten.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-438/97 (1)
                         (1999/C 352/51)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-131/99 (1)
By order of 8 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of                             (1999/C 352/53)
the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-438/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Holger Warnecke e.a. v                  By order of 19 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat de la province de Salzburg.             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-131/99: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


title: Case C-558/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG), Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark WESTERN GOLD — Opposition by the proprietor of the national, international and Community word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG), Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
   (Case C-558/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark WESTERN GOLD - Opposition by the proprietor of the national, international and Community word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD)
   2014/C 85/15
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG) (represented by: T. Melchert, Rechtsanwalt), Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter and A.K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung, by which the General Court (First Chamber) annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG — Application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign ‘WESTERN GOLD’ — Likelihood of confusion with the national, international and Community word marks ‘WeserGold’, ‘Wesergold’ and ‘WESERGOLD’ — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 1997 in Case C-197/96: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Equal treatment for men and women - Prohibition of nightwork)

text:
No C 142/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 5 . 97
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                  provisions for the implementation of Regulation ( EEC )
that court between Tommaso Morellato and Unità Sanita                  No 1999/85 on inward processing relief arrangements ( OJ
ria    Locale    (USL )     No    11 ,  Pordenone    —   on   the       No L 351 , 12 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth
interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty —                 Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón,                     President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ),
President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur )                D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet,
and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L.
General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 13 March 1997, in which it has ruled:                                  judgment on 13 March 1997, in which it has ruled :
 1 . The application to products lawfully manufactured                  Consideration of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86
     and marketed in other Member States of national                    of 24 November 1986 laying down provisions for the
     legislation prohibiting the marketing of bread with a              implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 on
     moisture content exceeding 34% or an ash content                   inward processing relief arrangements has not, in the light
     lower than 1,40% or containing bran constitutes a                  of the order for reference, disclosed any factor of such a
     measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative              kind as to affect its validity.
     restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC
     Treaty and is not justified under Article 36 of the                (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
     Treaty by the need to protect public health.
2 . The national court is under a duty to give full effect to
     Article 30 of the Treaty by disapplying on its own
     initiative provisions of national law conflicting with it.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .                                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 March 1997
                                                                        in   Case   C-197/96: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic (')
                                                                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                        Equal treatment for men and women — Prohibition of
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 nightwork)
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/04 )
                         of 13 March 1997
in Case C-103/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                               (Language of the case: French)
the Tribunal d'Instance, Lille ): Directeur Général des
  Douanes et Droits Indirects v. Eridania Beghin-Say SA (')
(Customs duties — Inward processing arrangements —                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Equivalent compensation system — Cane sugar and beet                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                 sugar)
                            ( 97/C 142/03 )
                                                                        In Case C-197/96 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agent: Marie Wolfcarius ) v. French
                                                                        Republic ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Claude
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Chavance ) — application for a declaration that by
                                                                        maintaining in force Article L 213-1 of the Code du
                                                                        Travail prohibiting nightwork by women in industry
                                                                        whereas no such prohibition exists in relation to men, the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Article   5  (1)   of Council       Directive 76/207/EEC of
                                                                        9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
                                                                        equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
In Case C-103/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177             employment, vocational training and promotion, and
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal d'Instance ( District                working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ) —
Court), Lille, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho
pending before that court between Directeur General des                 de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, D. A. O.
Douanes et Droits Indirects and Eridania Beghin-Say SA                  Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges;
— on the validity of Article 9 of Council Regulation                    G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
( EEC ) No 3677/86 of 24 November 1986 laying down                      given a judgment on 13 March 1997, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/3
1 . declares that by maintaining in force Article L 213-1             1 . dismisses the appeals;
     of the Code du Travail prohibiting nightwork by
     women in industry whereas no such prohibition exists
     in relation to men, the French Republic has failed to
     fulfil its obligations under Article 5 (1 ) of Council           2 . orders Guérin Automobiles and the Commission of the
     Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                        European Communities to bear their own costs.
     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
     men and women as regards access to employment,
                                                                      (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
     vocational training and promotion, and working
     conditions:
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 18 March 1997
                                                                      in Case C-343/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Tribunale di Genova): Diego Cali & Figli Srl v. Servizi
                                                                               Ecologici Porto di Genova SpA ( SEPG) (')
                                                                      (Harbour company — Prevention of pollution — Statutory
                                                                              monopoly — Abuse of a dominant position)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/06
                        of 18 March 1997
in Case C-282/95 P: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission
                of the European Communities (')                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
(Appeal — Competition — Complaint — Action for
failure to act — Notification under Article 6 of Regulation
No 99/63/EEC — Definition of a position terminating the
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         failure to act — Cross-appeal limited to costs)
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 97/C 142/05 )
                                                                      In Case C-343/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Genova ( Italy) for
                  (Language of the case: French)                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                      that court between Diego Call & Figli Sri and Servizi Eco
                                                                      logici Porto di Genova SpA ( SEPG ), on the interpretation
                                                                      of Article 86 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of:
                                                                      G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Murray and L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, C. N.
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
                                                                      D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm and M.
                                                                      Wathelet, Judges; G. Gosmas, Advocate-General; L.
                                                                      Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
In Case C-282/95 P: Guérin Automobiles ( represented by               judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it has ruled:
Jean-Claude Fourgoux), an appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-186/94 ([ 1995 ] ECR 11-1753 ), seeking to have
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings           Article 86 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as not
being the Commission of the European Communities                      being applicable to anti-pollution surveillance with which
(Agents: Giuliano Marenco and Francisco Enrique                       a body governed by private law has been entrusted by the
Gonzalez-Diaz ), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez              public authorities in an oil port of a Member State, even
Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                 where port users must pay dues to finance that activity.
Almeida and J. L. Murray, Presidents of Chambers, C.         N.
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A.                O.       (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 3 . 1995 .
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,               H.
Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges;            G.
Tesauro, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it:


title: Case T-652/14: Action brought on 8 September 2014  — AF Steelcase v OHIM

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/21

         Action brought on 8 September 2014 — AF Steelcase v OHIM
   (Case T-652/14)
   2014/C 380/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: AF Steelcase, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 08.07.2014 of OHIM concerning the exclusion of AF Steelcase from the tender procedure in question;

               —

               annul all other related decisions of OHIM in relation to the tender procedure in question, including, where appropriate, those awarding the contract forming the subject-matter of the procedure in question, directing that the tender procedure be brought back to a stage prior to the exclusion of AF Steelcase in order that its tender be assessed;

               —

               in the alternative, should retroaction not be possible, order OHIM to pay the applicant EUR 20  380 by way of compensation for material damage caused to AF Steelcase by the exclusion decision. In addition, order OHIM to pay the applicant EUR 24  000 by way of compensation for non-material damage caused to AF Steelcase by the exclusion decision, and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is directed against the exclusion of the tender submitted by the applicant in the public tender for the supply and installation of furniture and accessories (lot 1) and signage (lot 2) at OHIM’s head offices (OJEU 2014 S 023-035020, 1.2.2014).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and change of criteria in the decision excluding AF Steelcase from the public tender in question.

                           —

                           It is claimed in this regard that, apart from the insufficient reasoning in the exclusion decision, the administration changed the criteria which resulted in serious unfairness to the applicant, inasmuch as even though initially it was indicated that the ground for exclusion of the tender was that the amendment to box 20 rendered the tender incomplete, the arguments for the additional examination were different, being based on that reasoning.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of sound administration and proportionality that govern the actions of the European administration.

                           —

                           It is claimed in this regard that, in the present case, it was for OHIM, having found that Annex 20 was different in format, to have contacted AF Steelcase in order to clarify to what it corresponded, since OHIM was required to act diligently and prudently when examining and assessing the tender in question.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.

                           —

                           It is claimed in this regard that OHIM failed to request the necessary clarifications from AF Steelcase pursuant to Article 158(3) of that Regulation, which clarifications would not, in this case, have affected the substantial terms of the tender.


title: Case F-19/09: Action brought on 6 March 2009 — Lopez Sanchez v Council

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/46

         Action brought on 6 March 2009 — Lopez Sanchez v Council
   (Case F-19/09)
   2009/C 113/97
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Carolina Lopez Sanchez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case T-435/03: Action brought on 24 December 2003 by the Regione Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.2.2004             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 47/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Gibbesi’, ‘Messina-Palermo motorway major project’,
                                                                                ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana di Catania’, and all other acts
—     Annul the decision of the European Parliament to move                      resulting from it; Order the Commission of the European
      on to the recruiting phase provided for in Article 29(1)(b)                Communities to pay the costs.
      of the Staff Regulations, namely the organisation of an
      internal competition, in order to fill the post of Deputy
      Head of Division of the French Translation Division
      (Vacancy Notice No 9192);
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The Regione Siciliana has brought an action before the Court
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,               of First Instance of the European Communities for the
infringement of Article 233 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as the               annulment of Commission Decision BUDG/C3/EB/WH
Parliament failed to comply properly with the judgment of the              D(2003) 10.5 — 191 No 331997 of 24 October 2003 on
Court of First Instance of 15 November 2000 in Case                        ‘setting off the Commission’s claims against its debts’, included
T-261/99 Dehon v Parliament. The applicant further alleges                 in the table annexed which sets out the ‘set off prescribed on
infringement of Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations and              7 November 2003’, with reference to amounts relating to the
breach of the principle that officials must have reasonable                European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) applicable to
career prospects.                                                          the ‘Porto Empedocle major project’, ‘Diga Gibbesi’, ‘Messina-
                                                                           Palermo motorway major project’, ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana
                                                                           di Catania’, and all other acts resulting from it.
                                                                           In support of its action the Regione Siciliana alleges:
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           1.    Infringement and/or erroneous application of Articles 71
                             munities
                                                                                and 73 of Council Regulation No 1605 of 25 June
                                                                                2002 (1) and Articles 83 and 86 of Commission
                         (Case T-435/03)                                         implementing Regulation No 2342 of 23 December
                                                                                2002 (2) in so far as the contested decision has set off
                                                                                against the credits of the Regione Siciliana certain debts
                          (2004/C 47/73)                                         in the form of interest for late payment alleged to have
                                                                                accrued to the Regione during periods in which, had the
                                                                                Commission applied the Community rules according to
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                               the law and timeously, no such interest would have
                                                                                become due;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  2.    Infringement and erroneous application of Articles 73
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       and 187 of Council Regulation No 1605 of 25 June 2002
European Communities on 24 December 2003 by the Regione                          and Article 83 of Commission implementing Regulation
Siciliana, represented by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.                      No 2342 of 23 December 2002 as regards the starting
                                                                                date for the application of the compulsory set off of
                                                                                credits and debits to the Commission;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul Commission Decision BUDG/C3/EB/WH D(2003)                      3.    Misuse of powers on grounds of contradiction between
      10.5 — 191 No 331997 of 24 October 2003 on ‘setting                        subsequent acts and infringement of the principle of
      off the Commission’s claims against its debts’, included in                legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission
      the table annexed which sets out the ‘set off prescribed                   contradicted its own earlier decisions even against the
      on 7 November 2003’, with reference to amounts relating                    Regione Siciliana as regards the lawfulness of using a set
      to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)                           off to extinguish financial obligations similar to those in
      applicable to the ‘Porto Empedocle major project’, ‘Diga                   the present case;
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/40                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         21.2.2004
4.    Infringement (in various respects) of Article 73 of Regu-             European Communities on 26 December 2003 by Kelvin
      lation No 1605 of 2002 and Article 32 of Council                      William Stephens, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
      Regulation (EC) No 1260 of 21 June 1999 (3), in that the              Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      Commission unlawfully retained the credit owed to the
      Regione Siciliana substantially after the time when a                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      lawful and unexceptionable application for payment had
      been made.                                                            —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
                                                                                23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June                      applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
    2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget             him in Grade A6, Step 2, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
    of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248 of 16.09.02, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of                     —     Annul, so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing
    23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-                 authority of 4 September 2003, notified to the applicant
    tation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the                on 17 September 2003, rejecting complaint R/155/03;
    Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
    European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357 of 31.12.02, p. 1).                 —     Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying                   ings.
    down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161
    of 26.06.1999, p. 1).
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
                                                                            C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered
                                                                            under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the classification
Action brought on 26 December 2003 by Kelvin William                        of officials who used remedies within the meaning of Article 91
Stephens against Commission of the European Communi-                        of the Staff Regulations. Following that exercise, the Com-
                                 ties                                       mission adopted the contested decision in respect of the
                                                                            applicant.
                          (Case T-438/03)
                                                                            In support of his action, the applicant claims, as regards
                           (2004/C 47/74)                                   additional seniority, that there has been a breach of the
                                                                            Commission decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983
                   (Language of the case: French)                           on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to
                                                                            classification in step on recruitment, a breach of Article 5(3)
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations, and of the principle of equal treatment
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   and, last, a breach of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case C-374/09 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2009 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 July 2009 in Case T-234/09 Hârsulescu v Romania

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/14

      Appeal brought on 23 September 2009 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 July 2009 in Case T-234/09 Hârsulescu v Romania
      (Case C-374/09 P)
      (2010/C 161/20)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

         Appellant: Constantin Hârsulescu (represented by: C. Stanciu)

         Other party to the proceedings: Romania
      The Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 4 March 2010.


title: Case T-366/04: Action brought on 8 September 2004 by Hensotherm AB against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/22

         Action brought on 8 September 2004 by Hensotherm AB against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-366/04)
   (2005/C 31/45)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 September 2004 by Hensotherm AB, Trelleborg (Sweden), represented by Stefan Hallbäck, lawyer.
   Rudolf Hensel GmbH, Börnsen (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation for examination of the substance of the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 September 2003 on the ground of breach of essential procedural requirements;

               —

               in the alternative, examine the appeal against the Cancellation Division's decision of 11 September 2003 and the Board of Appeal's decision of 12 July 2004 and dismiss Rudolf Hensel GmbH's application for a declaration of invalidity of Community trade mark No 357 863;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Registered Community trade mark subject to an application for declaration of invalidity:

               Figurative mark ‘HENSOTHERM’ for goods in Classes 2 and 17 (paints, insulation and sealing material) – Community trade mark No 357 863

               Proprietor of Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Party seeking a declaration of invalidity:

               Rudolf Hensel GmbH

               Trade mark held by the party seeking a declaration of invalidity:

               National word mark ‘HENSOTHERM’ (No 213 672) for goods in Class 2

               Decision of the Cancellation Division:

               Declaration of invalidity of Community trade mark 'HENSOTHERM' on the ground of the risk of confusion with the earlier national trade mark ‘HENSOTHERM’ (No 213 672)

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Breach of Articles 52(1)(a) and 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94


title: Action brought on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Council of the European Union (Case C-122/95)

text:
  !. 7 . 95            I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 174/3
( f) Does the levying on an importer acting in good faith of                  claims commission was entered into in that place within
        the duties payable on goods in respect of which an                    the agent's geographical area .
        exporter has committed a customs offence, in which the
        importer was in no way involved , infringe the principles
        of justice, prohibition of enrichment at the expense of
        others, proportionality, legal certainty and good
        faith ?
                                                                         Appeal brought on 31 March 1995 by the Bundesverband
(g ) Since the customs authorities in the country of                     der Bilanzbuchhalter against the judgment delivered on
        exportation neglected to carry out a prior inspection of         23 January 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
        the exporter 's warehouses before issuing the-movement           First Instance of the European Communities in Case
        certificates EUR.l , and since the Portuguese importer           T-84/94 between the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter
        cannot remedy the situation arising from such                        and the Commission of the European Communities
        negligence , does that situation not constitute a case of                              ( Case C-107/95 P )
        force majeure for the importer, precluding the
                                                                                95 /C 174/05 )
        procedure for post-clearance recovery commenced
        against it ?
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January
(') OJ No L 175 , 1 . 7. 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                         1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
( 2 ) OJ No L .302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .                            of the European Communities in Case T-84/94 between the
(') 1 1993 | ECR , p . 1-6381 .                                          Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter and the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 1 March
                                                                         1995 by the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter,
                                                                         represented by Joachim A. Miiller, Rechtsanwalt, Munich,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                         of Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles
Protodikio , Athens , by judgment of that court of                       The appellant claims that the Court should :
30 November 1994 in the case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v.
                            Kartonpak AE                                 set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                          ( Case C-104/95 )                              23 January 1995 in Case T-84/94 (').
                            ( 95 /C 174/04 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Infringement of the provisions of the EC Treaty , in
European Communities by a judgment of the Polimeles                      particular Articles 5 , 59 , 86 and 90 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ), and
Protodikio ( Court of First Instance , several judges ), Athens ,        misinterpretation of Articles 155 and 169 of the EC Treaty .
of 30 November 1994 , which was received at the Court
                                                                         Contrary to the assumption made in the contested
Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the              judgment, an action against a refusal to bring proceedings
case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v. Kartonpak AE pending                    under Article 1 69 or Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty must in
before it on the following questions :                                   any event be admissible where it is pleaded that the refusal is
                                                                         based on a defective investigation into the facts or the
 1 . Where the commercial agent is responsible for a specific            assessment by the Commission in the case in point is reduced
      geographical area , is he entitled to commission on                to naught.
       transactions entered into without his involvement at any
       stage and irrespective of whether he himself had found            (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 , p . 11 .
       the customers in question, or is he so entitled only on
       transactions concluded in his area of activity as a result
       of his intervention with customers which he himself has
       found ?
2 . What is the meaning to be attached to the term                       Action brought on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of
       'customer belonging ' to that area ? In particular where             Germany against the Council of the European Union
       the customer is a company whose seat is located in a                                       ( Case C-122/95 )
       different place from that in which its managerial and
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/06 )
       commercial activity is carried on , does the word
       ' belonging' refer to the company's seat or to the place in
       which its commercial activity is actually carried on              An action against the Council of the European Union was
       and/or its works or other establishments are located ,            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       where the transaction in respect of which commission is           Communities on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of
       sought was to supply those works or establishments and            Germany, represented by Ernst Roder and Berndt Kloke,
       the relevant transaction in respect of which the agent            Federal Ministry of Economics, Bonn.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 174/4            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8 . 7 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 1 . release of the funds is sought to pay a national of
                                                                                Member State B for goods exported by him from
1 . declare void the first indent of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council                    Member State B to Serbia or Montenegro;
     Decision   94/ 800/EC        of 22     December     1994   in
     connection with Paragraph 1 of the Marrakesh Protocol                   2 . ( a ) the goods have been formally approved as
     and Article 4 ( 1 ) of the Agreement on Agriculture in                              intended strictly for medical purposes by the
     Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World                                    United Nations Sanctions Committee pursuant
     Trade Organization ( WTO ), in so far as the Council has                            to UN Security Council Resolution 757;
     thereby confirmed the conclusion of the Community's                           ( b ) they have been exported pursuant to a prior
     Framework Agreement on Bananas with Costa Rica,                                     export authorization issued by the competent
     Colombia , Nicaragua and Venezuela ;                                                authorities of Member State B pursuant to
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1432/92 ;
2 . order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                             3 . the national measures permit the release of funds in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                payment for the export of such goods from Member
                                                                                State A itself where the export authorization
                                                                                referred to at paragraph 2 ( b ) has been issued by the
Infringement of Community law of a higher order : The                              competent authorities of Member State A; and
Framework Agreement approved by the Council infringes
the fundamental rights of market operators in Groups A and                   4 . Member State A has decided that the adoption of
C ( within the meaning of Council Regulation ( EEC )                               such national measures is necessary or expedient for
No 404/93 ) to the freedom to pursue an occupation, to                             enabling UN Security Council Resolution 757 to be
equal treatment and to property ( in the business established                      effectively applied ?
and carried on by them ). The Framework Agreement leads
to the purchase of third-country bananas being made more                2 . Is the answer to question 1 affected by the provisions of
difficult than hitherto under Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 ,                 Article 234 of the EC Treaty ?
because a part of the tariff quota may henceforth be derived
only from certain countries, and those countries are                    (') OJ No L 151 , 3 . 6 . 1992 , p . 4 .
additionally authorized to issue export licences the
production of which is a precondition for the issuing of
import licences by the Community to operators of Groups A
and C. There are no obvious technical reasons to justify the
consequent further worsening in the position of traditional             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal in
importers of third-country bananas .                                    Northern Ireland , by order of that court of 27 March 1995 ,
                                                                        in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against the
                                                                                Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food
                                                                                ( Case C-127/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 174/08 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
 London, by order of that court of 27 May 1994 , in the case            in Northern Ireland of 27 March 1995 , which was received
 of The Queen against HM Treasury and the Bank of                       at the Court Registry on 18 April 1995 , for a preliminary
              England , ex parte: Centro-Com srl                        ruling in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against the
                         ( Case C-124/95 )                              Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food , on the
                            ( 95/C 174/07 )                              following questions :
                                                                         1 . Are Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal,                     States relating to veterinary medicinal products (') and
 London, of 27 May 1994, which was received at the Court                      Council Directive 8 1/852/EEC of 28 September 1981 on
 Registry on 11 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                  the approximation of the laws of the Member States
 case of The Queen against HM Treasury and the Bank of                        relating to analytical , pharmaco-toxicological and
 England, ex parte -. Centro-Com srl , on the following                       clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing
 questions :                                                                  of veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ) ( and in particular
                                                                              Articles 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 29 to 31 , 35 , 40 and 41 of Directive
 1 . Is it compatible with the common commercial policy of                    81 / 851 /EEC and Part 1 of the Annex to Directive
      the Community and , in particular, Article 1 1 3 of the EC              8 1 /852/EEC in the form in which they existed prior to
      Treaty and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1432/92 of                     any amendment ) to be interpeted as permitting the
      1 June 1992 prohibiting trade between the European                      competent        authority      of    a    Member     State ,    in
      Economic Community and the Republics of Serbia and                      circumstances such as those hereinbefore described :
      Montenegro (') for Member State A to adopt national
      measures which prohibit the release of funds located in                 ( a ) to require an applicant for a marketing
      Member State A but belonging to a person in Serbia or                           authorization in respect of a veterinary medicinal
      Montenegro in circumstances where :                                             product ('the Product') to identify or to arrange to


title: Case C-654/13: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 183 — Reimbursement of excess VAT — National rules preventing the payment of default interest on VAT not recoverable within a reasonable period on account of a condition held to be contrary to EU law — Principle of equivalence)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/31

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)
   (Case C-654/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Reimbursement of excess VAT - National rules preventing the payment of default interest on VAT not recoverable within a reasonable period on account of a condition held to be contrary to EU law - Principle of equivalence))
   2014/C 315/49
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

      Operative part of the order

   EU law, and in particular Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation and practice of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prevent the payment of default interest on amounts of value added tax which were not recoverable within a reasonable period and on account of a national provision held to be contrary to EU law. In the absence of EU legislation on the subject, it is for the national law to establish, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the procedure for the payment of such interest, which must not be less favourable than that applicable to actions based on infringement of domestic law with a similar purpose and cause of action to those based on the infringement of the EU law or be arranged such as to render the exercise of the rights conferred by the European Union legal order impossible in practice or excessively difficult, which it is for the referring court to ascertain in the case before it. The national courts are required, if necessary, to disapply any provision of national law contrary to EU law.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Appeal brought on 20 March 1998 by Ajinomoto Co. Inc. against the judgment delivered on 18 December 1997 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined Cases T-159/94 between Ajinomoto Co. Inc. and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities, and T-160/94 between The NutraSweet Company and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-76/98 P)

text:
30.5.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 166/5
Appeal brought on 20 March 1998 by Mario Costacurta                    for Official Publications are, in budgetary terms, part
against the judgment delivered on 22 January 1998 by the               of the Commission's total staff', since that has not
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    been the case since 1970;
European Communities in Case T-98/96 between Mario
     Costacurta and the Commission of the European
                         Communities                               Ð Infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;
                      (Case C-75/98 P)
                        (98/C 166/07)                              Ð Contravention of the principle of the protection of
                                                                       legitimate expectations and the duty to have regard for
                                                                       the welfare of officials;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 22 January
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-98/96 between                Ð Infringement of Articles 25 and 101a of the Staff
Mario Costacurta and the Commission of the European                    Regulations.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 20 March 1998 by Mario                 (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 20.
Costacurta, represented by Albert Rodesch, Avocat-avoueÂ,          (2) OJ L 13 of 18.1.1969, p. 19.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at 7Ð11
Route d'Esch.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the judgment delivered on 22 January 1998 by               Appeal brought on 20 March 1998 by Ajinomoto Co. Inc.
    the Court of First Instance in Case T-98/96 Costacurta         against the judgment delivered on 18 December 1997 by
    v Commission (1);                                              the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
                                                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in joined
                                                                   Cases T-159/94 (1) between Ajinomoto Co. Inc. and the
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of 31 May
    1996 reassigning the appellant to the Office for               Council of the European Union, supported by the
    Official Publications of the European Communities;             Commission of the European Communities, and T-160/
                                                                   94 (2) between The NutraSweet Company and the Council
                                                                   of the European Union, supported by the Commission of
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings                              the European Communities
    before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First
                                                                                (Case C-76/98 P)
    Instance;
                                                                                (98/C 166/08)
Ð reserve to the appellant all other rights and
    entitlements, including the right to put forward pleas
    in law or bring proceedings, particularly regarding            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 December
    compensation for damage.                                       1997 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of
                                                                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                   in joined Cases T-159/94 between Ajinomoto Co. Inc. and
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                   the Council of the European Union, supported by the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, and T-160/94
Ð Lack of competence on the part of the appointing                 between The NutraSweet Company and the Council of the
    authority, infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of the Staff       European Union, supported by the Commission of the
    Regulations and of Article 5(4) of Decision 69/13/             European Communities, was brought before the Court of
    Euratom/EEC setting up the Office for Official                 Justice of the European Communities on 20 March 1998
    Publications of the European Communities (2): the              by Ajinomoto Co. Inc., of 15-1, Kyobashi itchome, Chuo-
    Court of First Instance erred in dismissing as irrelevant      ku, Tokyo 104, Japan, represented by Mario Siragusa, of
    the plea in law alleging infringement of Article 4 of          the Rome Bar, Till Müller-Ibold, of the Frankfurt Bar, and
    the Staff Regulations. Since the appointing authoritiy         Victoria Donaldson, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of
    which adopted the contested decision was in no way a           England and Wales, instructed by Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
    budgetary authority and since it was not empowered             & Hamilton, Brussels, with an address for service in
    to amend the lists of authorised posts, it could not           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11, Rue
    assign the appellant to the Official Publications Office       Goethe.
    together with his post;
                                                                   The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð Infringement of Article 6 of the Staff Regulations,
    infringement of the Council regulation on the budget
    of the European Communities: the Court of First                Ð quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
    Instance was wrong to state in paragraph 34 of the                 joined Cases T-159/94 and T-160/94 and annul
    judgment under appeal that, as a matter of law, as the            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 (3) of 27 May
    Commission has pointed out, the posts with the Office              1991 in so far as it applies to the Appellant;
 ---pagebreak--- C 166/6              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.5.98
Ð in the alternative, quash the judgment of the Court of           and this defect in the Provisional Duty could not be and
    First Instance in joined cases T-159/94 and T-160/94           was not remedied in the Definitive Duty Regulation.
    in so far as it does not annul Article 2 of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 of 27 May 1991                     (1) OJ C 291 of 8.11.1991, p. 8.
    ordering the definitive collection of the amounts              (2) OJ C 291 of 8.11.1991, p. 9.
    secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty and            (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 of 27 May 1991
    annul Article 2 of that Regulation in so far as it                 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
    applies to the Appellant;                                          aspartame originating in Japan and the United States of
                                                                       America (OJ L 134 of 29.5.1991, p. 1).
                                                                   (4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on
Ð order such other or further relief as may be lawful or               protection against dumped or subsidized imports from
    equitable; and                                                     countries not members of the European Economic Community
                                                                       (OJ L 209 of 2.8.1988, p. 1).
Ð order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of            Appeal brought on 20 March 1998 by the NutraSweet
First Instance contains fundamental errors of law and              Company against the judgment delivered on 18 December
must be set aside.                                                 1997 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of
                                                                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
First, the Court of First Instance erred in finding that           in joined Cases T-159/94 (1) between Ajinomoto Co. Inc.
patent-protection in the exporter's domestic market alone          and the Council of the European Union, supported by the
is irrelevant to the price comparability requirement               Commission of the European Communities, and T-160/
contained in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)              94 (2) between The NutraSweet Company and the Council
No 2423/88 (4), hereinafter the Basic Regulation'. The            of the European Union, supported by the Commission of
ordinary meaning of the word comparable' within                                      the European Communities
Article 2(3), the overall scheme of the Basic Regulation                                   (Case C-77/98 P)
and of the process for establishing and comparing normal
value and export price, GATT law, U.S. law, and the aims                                     (98/C 166/09)
and objectives of anti-dumping law and of intellectual
property law all lead to the conclusion that patent-
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 December
protection is a matter affecting price comparability within
                                                                   1997 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of
the meaning of Article 2(3) and that normal value may
                                                                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
not be established on the basis of actual domestic prices
                                                                   in joined Cases T-159/94 between Ajinomoto Co. Inc. and
when those prices (but not export prices) are the result of
                                                                   the Council of the European Union, supported by the
patent-protected sales.
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, and T-160/94
                                                                   between The NutraSweet Company and the Council of the
Second, the Court of First Instance erred, for the same            European Union, supported by the Commission of the
reasons, in basing normal value for Japanese origin                European Communities, was brought before the Court of
aspartame on U.S. patent-protected prices. Articles 2(3)           Justice of the European Communities on 20 March 1998
and 2(6) of the Basic Regulation preclude the                      by The NutraSweet Company, of 1751, Lake Cook Road,
determination of normal value on the basis of actual               Deerfield, Illinois 60015, United States of America,
prices in a country (other than the country of origin) from        represented by Jean-FrancËois Bellis, of the Brussels Bar,
which a product is shipped to the Community when there             and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Rome Bar, of Van Bael &
is no comparable price' in that intermediate market.              Bellis, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Patent-protected prices are not comparable prices.                 at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11, Rue Goethe.
Third, the Court of First Instance erred in finding that a         The Appellant claims that the Court should:
failure by the Commission to grant any disclosure of its
determinations prior to the imposition of provisional
                                                                   Ð quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
duties is a defect which can be remedied after the
                                                                        joined cases T-159/94 and T-160/94 and annul Council
imposition of provisional duties and does not, therefore,
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 (3) of 27 May 1991 in
affect the validity of the defintive collection of the
                                                                        so far as it applies to the Appellant;
provisional duties. The fundamental principles of
Community law Ð in particular the right to be heard Ð
and the practice of the Commission in other cases required         Ð in the alternative, quash the judgment of the Court of
the Commission to disclose essential facts and                          First Instance in joined cases T-159/94 and T-160/94
considerations to the Appellant prior to the adoption of                in so far as it does not annul Article 2 of Council
the Provisional Duty Regulation. The Commission's                       Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 of 27 May 1991
failure to make timely disclosure of such matters to the                ordering the definitive collection of the amounts
Appellant amounted to a breach of this fundamental                      secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty and
principle as well as to discrimination. This fundamental                annul Article 2 of that Regulation in so far as it
breach rendered the Provisional Duty Regulation invalid,                applies to the Appellant;


title: Case C-608/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Spanish market for penetration bitumen — Market sharing and price coordination — Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission — Appeal on the costs)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA v European Commission
   (Case C-608/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission - Appeal on the costs))
   (2016/C 296/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA (represented by: O. Armengol i Gasull and J. M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and by A.J. Rivas, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-357/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2011 — Maahanmuuttovirasto

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2011 — Maahanmuuttovirasto
   (Case C-357/11)
   2011/C 269/75
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Maahanmuuttovirasto

      Other party: L

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 20 TFEU preclude a third-country national from being refused a residence permit because of lack of means of subsistence in a family situation in which his spouse is the carer of a child who is a citizen of the Union and the third-country national is not that child’s parent or carer and does not live with his spouse or with that child?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must the effect of Article 20 TFEU be assessed differently if the third-country national who does not have a residence permit, and does not live in Finland, and his spouse have a child, in their joint care and living in Finland, who is a third-country national?


title: Case C-485/10: Action brought on 8 October 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/26

         Action brought on 8 October 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-485/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/44
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Konstantinidis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision E(2008) 3118 of 2 July 2008 (as rectified by the Commission Decision of 13 August 2008) on aid granted to Hellenic Shipyards SA or, in any event, by failing to give sufficient information to the Commission on the measures taken in accordance with Article 19 of the decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 18 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject of the Commission’s action is the non-implementation by the Hellenic Republic of the Commission's decision relating to illegal State aid in favour of Hellenic Shipyards SA which must be recovered from the non-military part of that undertaking.
   The Commission points out that the Hellenic Republic should have ensured implementation of the decision within four months of the date of its notification. The decision was published on 13 August 2008 and the Commission did not grant any extension for implementation of the decision. Consequently, the period for compliance formally expired on 13 December 2008.
   The Commission states that, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, the only justification that may be put forward by a Member State in an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is that is absolutely impossible for it properly to implement the decision.
   However, in this case the Greek authorities have never raised the argument of absolute impossibility of implementation. On the contrary, from the outset they expressed their intention to implement the decision as rapidly as possible. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that as of the date on which this action was lodged, they have not taken any steps that would constitute even partial implementation of the decision.
   The Commission considers that Greece has not taken the necessary action to implement the decision either in accordance with the solution discussed between its services and the competent Greek authorities or in any other appropriate way.


title: Case T-96/12: Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Spain v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/33

         Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-96/12)
   2012/C 109/66
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation to pay the Spanish authorities the outstanding balances within a two-month period from the submission of the documents listed in Article D(2)(d) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/1994;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the letter of 22 December 2011 containing the Commission's response to the earlier request sent to that institution in relation to the payment of the balance corresponding to the closure procedure of the projects co-financed by the Cohesion Funds, assigned to Spain for the programming period 2000-2006, and order the Commission to proceed with the payment of the outstanding balances referred to; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In these proceedings, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation, which the applicant alleges it to be under, to pay the outstanding balances relating to the closure procedure of the projects co-financed by the Cohesion Funds, assigned to Spain for the programming period 2000-2006.
   In the alternative, and if the General Court considers that the letter of 22 December 2011, containing the Commission's response to the Kingdom of Spain's earlier request, puts an end to the Commission's failure to fulfil its obligation, the applicant also seeks the annulment of that letter.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               Infringement of point 5 of Article D of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94, (1) since the Commission failed to pay the balance of the projects referred to in the application within a two-month period, without that time-limit having been interrupted or suspended.

               2.

               Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the Commission infringed a clear legal principle with specific legal consequences.

               3.

               Infringement of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1386/2002, (2) in that the Commission failed to adopt the corresponding decision within a three-month period from the date of the hearing with the Spanish authorities.

               4.

               Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 1164/94, since the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers granted to it under that article in the area of financial checks.

               5.

               Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 1386/2002 in that the Commission did not make use of the legal facility provided for it to request that a further check be carried out.

               6.

               Infringement of Article H of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 in that the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in that article without first satisfying the requirements to do so.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 of 29 July 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund and the procedure for making financial corrections (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 5).


title: Case C-582/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2(a) — Article 7(f) — Definition of ‘personal data’ — Internet protocol addresses — Storage of data by an online media services provider — National legislation not permitting the legitimate interest pursued by the controller to be taken into account)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-582/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2(a) - Article 7(f) - Definition of ‘personal data’ - Internet protocol addresses - Storage of data by an online media services provider - National legislation not permitting the legitimate interest pursued by the controller to be taken into account))
   (2016/C 475/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Patrick Breyer

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that a dynamic IP address registered by an online media services provider when a person accesses a website that the provider makes accessible to the public constitutes personal data within the meaning of that provision, in relation to that provider, where the latter has the legal means which enable it to identify the data subject with additional data which the internet service provider has about that person.

               2.

               Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, pursuant to which an online media services provider may collect and use personal data relating to a user of those services, without his consent, only in so far as that the collection and use of that data are necessary to facilitate and charge for the specific use of those services by that user, even though the objective aiming to ensure the general operability of those services may justify the use of those data after a consultation period of those websites.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Action brought on 24 January 1995 by José Hodar against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-12/95)

text:
 No C 74/14            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 3 . 95
 3% the additional rate of permanent partial invalidity             deserving candidates and to include officials from lower
which he suffers following the deterioration of his state of        down the list gof officials proposed unless it was established
health .                                                            that their merits were at least equal to his. He notes that the
                                                                    list of officials proposed is drawn up specifically in order of
                                                                    merit, which implies that the promotion committee
                                                                    unlawfully gave preference to the criterion of seniority over
                                                                    that of merit. It follows, he argues, that there has been a
                                                                    breach of the Staff Regulations and of the proper procedure
                                                                    for promotion.
Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Jose Hodar against
       the Commission of the European Communities                   Lastly, the applicant points out that there are no objective
                        (Case T-12/95 )                             factors to demonstrate why the promotion committee did
                          ( 95/C 74/26                              not include his name on the list in question when the four
                                                                    officials below him on the list of names proposed were
                                                                    included; the same applies to the inclusion on the list of
                 (Language of the case: French)                     officials who were not on the list of officials proposed.
                                                                    Accordingly, he considers that the decision infringed the
An action against the Commission of the European                    obligation to state the grounds on which it was based, as laid
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 1995
by Jose Hodar, resident in Redange (France), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Sari Fiduciaire
Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance               Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis
should :                                                                     against the Economic and Social Committee
                                                                                ( Case T-13/95 )
— annul the Commission's decision not to place the                                            ( 95/C 74/27)
     applicant on the list of officials considered most
     deserving of promotion to Grade D1 for the year
     1994,                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
— so far as is necessary, annul all subsequent decisions
     adopted in relation to promotion to Grade D1 for the           An action against the Economic and Social Committee was
     year 1994, and more particularly the decision not to           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     promote the applicant to that grade,                           Communities on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis,
                                                                   resident in Gendebien, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noel
                                                                    Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                    Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                    should :
The applicant claims that he was placed on the list of
officials eligible for promotion to Grade D1 proposed by
DG IX for the promotion year 1994. He was not, however,            — annul the decisions to reject his candidature for vacant
included on the list of the most deserving officials drawn up            posts 2/94, 3/94 and 4/94,
by the promotion committee, whereas the committee did
include on that list some officials placed below him on the        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
list of officials proposed by DG IX as well as some officials
who had not even been proposed.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Firstly, the applicant claims that the inclusion in the list of
most deserving candidates of officials who had not been            In support of his action, the applicant alleges breach of
proposed and who had a 'normal' career profile ( statistical       Article 29 of the Staff Regulations and the vacancy notice
representation of the group of officials eligible for              and also a manifest error of assessment and breach of
promotion, based on the objective factors of age and               Article 45 of the Regulations.
seniority) is contrary to the Commission's decision of
24 November 1976 concerning promotions, which provides             The applicant claims that the appointing authority has
that only 'slow' career officials can be so included.              acknowledged that it transferred an official to one of the
                                                                   vacant posts without consideration of the comparative
The applicant also claims that it was not open to the              merits of all the officials who applied for transfer to that
promotion committee to exclude him from the list of most           post. He concludes accordingly that the decision rejecting


title: Case T-430/04: Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Nomura Principal Investment plc and Nomura International plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/25

         Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Nomura Principal Investment plc and Nomura International plc against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-430/04)
   (2005/C 31/48)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 October 2004 by Nomura Principal Investment plc and Nomura International plc, London (United Kingdom), represented by C.-D. Ehlermann, F. Louis, A. Vallery, G. A. Gutermuth and C. Duvernoy, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 14 July 2004 in State aid case No CZ 46/2003 - Czech Republic (Investiÿní a poštovní banka, a.s.);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision was taken under the procedure established by Section 3 of Annex IV of the Accession Treaty to the European Union, for the review, by the Commission, of State aid measures that the new Member States adopted prior to their accession and that their authorities notified to the Commission before 1 May 2004. The contested decision determines that pre-accession aid measures that the Czech Republic granted to the Czech bank Ceskoslovenska obchodni banka (‘CSOB’) are not ‘applicable after accession’ within the meaning of Section 3 of Annex IV of the Accession Treaty and therefore not subject to the Commission's review for substantive conformity with the EU State aid rules.
   The applicant submits that this decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Czech aid measures in question are applicable after accession. According to the applicant, the contested decision violates Section 3, Annex IV of the Accession Treaty, Article 253 EC, Article 88 EC and Regulation 659/1999 (1) by applying an incorrect definition of ‘measures still applicable’ after accession.
   The applicant further claims that in adopting the contested decision, the Commission misused its powers in violation of Section 3, Annex IV of the Accession Treaty and Article 88 EC by redefining ‘measures still applicable’ to avoid review of a measure adopted by an accession country that would have fallen under the Commission's prior definition of this legal concept.
   The applicant also submits that the Commission erred in law in violation of Section 3, Annex IV of the Treaty of Accession and Article 88 EC by failing to open the formal investigative procedure despite the continuing open and unresolved factual issues and the many doubts concerning the legality of the notified measures. It also erred in law by misapplying its own definition for post-accession applicability of pre-accession aid measures granted by the Czech Republic to guarantees for litigation risks and other claims issued by the Czech National Bank to CSOB. Finally, it erred both in law and in fact by failing to correctly investigate the facts relating to the aid measures granted by the Czech State to CSOB.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.


title: Case C-104/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Wolfram Becker (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(2)(a) — Right to deduct input tax — Need for a direct and immediate link between an input and an output transaction — Criterion for determining that link — Services of lawyers performed in the context of criminal proceedings for corruption brought in a personal capacity against the managing director and main partner of a limited company)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/20

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Wolfram Becker
   (Case C-104/12) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(2)(a) - Right to deduct input tax - Need for a direct and immediate link between an input and an output transaction - Criterion for determining that link - Services of lawyers performed in the context of criminal proceedings for corruption brought in a personal capacity against the managing director and main partner of a limited company)
   2013/C 114/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Köln-Nord

      Defendant: Wolfram Becker

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 17(2)(a) and 22(3)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Creation and extent of the right to deduct — Need for a direct and immediate link between the economic activity of the taxable person and the supply of a service — Services provided by lawyers in the context of criminal proceedings relating to corruption charges brought against the managing director and principal executive officer of a public limited company

      Operative part of the judgment

   The existence of a direct and immediate link between a given transaction and the taxable person’s activity as a whole for the purposes of determining whether the goods and services were used by the latter ‘for the purposes of taxable transactions’ within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, depends on the objective content of the goods or services acquired by that taxable person.
   In this case, the supplies of lawyers’ services, whose purpose is to avoid criminal penalties against natural persons, managing directors of a taxable undertaking, do not give that undertaking the right to deduct as input tax the VAT due on the services supplied.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15) v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7 — Compensation payable to passengers in the event that their flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours — Article 16 — National bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation — Powers — Adoption of enforcement measures against the air carrier for payment of the compensation due to the passenger)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/17

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15) v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu
   (Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15) (1)

   ((Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7 - Compensation payable to passengers in the event that their flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours - Article 16 - National bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation - Powers - Adoption of enforcement measures against the air carrier for payment of the compensation due to the passenger))
   (2016/C 156/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15)

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an individual complaint has been made by a passenger to the body designated by each Member State pursuant to Article 16(1) of the regulation following the refusal by an air carrier to pay to the passenger the compensation provided for in Article 7(1) of the regulation, that body is not required to take enforcement action against the carrier with a view to compelling it to pay the compensation.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/1

         2010/C 134/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 113, 1.5.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 100, 17.4.2010

      OJ C 80, 27.3.2010

      OJ C 63, 13.3.2010

      OJ C 51, 27.2.2010

      OJ C 37, 13.2.2010

      OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-626/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement — Proof — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Reasonable time — Proportionality)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-626/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 104/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH (represented by: A. Reidlinger and J. Weichbrodt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.