title: Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-358/97)

text:
C 387/6                                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                         20 . 12 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      by the Commission of the European Communities,
                           ( First Chamber)                               represented by Helene Michard and Barry Doherty,
                                                                          members of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                        of 6 November 1997                                address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gomez de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service,
in Case C-261/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                Centre Wagner.
the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Conserchimica Srl v.
        Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (')
(Customs duty — Post-clearance recovery of import duties                  The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                        — Limitation period)
                             ( 97/C 387/ 10 )                             — declare that in not subjecting tolls for the use of
                                                                                existing toll-roads and toll-bridges in Ireland to value
                                                                                added tax contrary to the provisions of Articles 2,
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                4 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive (') and by
                                                                                failing to make available to the Commission the
                                                                                amounts         of own      resources  and  interest   on    late
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 payment as a consequence of this infringement Ireland
          published in the European Court Reports)                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty,
In the Case C-261 /96 : reference to the Court under                      — order Ireland to bear the costs of these proceedings .
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Corte d'Appello di
Venezia ( Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
pending before that court between Conserchimica Sri and
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato — on the
interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                 Value Added Tax
No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance
recovery of import duties or export duties which have not
                                                                          Taxable transactions
been required of the person liable for payment on goods
entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
to pay such duties ( OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1 ) — the Court                    The heart of the present case is whether certain
( First Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward                           transactions are subject to VAT. As a result, it is necessary
( Rapporteur) acting as President of Chamber, R Jann and                  to establish the exact scope of the tax . Article 2
L. Sevon, Judges, B. Elmer, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   paragraph 1 of the Sixth VAT Directive provides that
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 1997, in                    value added tax shall be levied on 'the supply of goods or
which it has ruled :
                                                                          services effected for consideration within the territory of
                                                                          the country by a taxable person acting as such'. Article 4
the second subparagraph of Article 2 (1 ) of Council                      of the same Directive provides some definitions :
Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties                 ' 1 . 'Taxable person' shall mean any person who
which have not been required of the person liable for                           independently carries out in any place any economic
payment on goods entered for a customs procedure                                activity specified in paragraph 2 whatever the purpose
involving the obligation to pay such duties does not apply                      or results of that activity.
 to duties not collected in respect of goods entered for a
 customs procedure where the obligation to pay those
duties was incurred on a date prior to the entry into force                 2 . The economic activities referred to in paragraph 1
 of that regulation.                                                            shall comprise all activities of producers, traders and
                                                                                persons supplying services (. . .). The exploitation of
 (') OJ C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                                  tangible or intangible property for the purpose of
                                                                                obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis
                                                                                shall also be considered an economic activity '.
                                                                                (Emphasis added)
                                                                          The Commission submits that one example of 'the
                                                                          exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the
 Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission                      purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing
         of the European Communities against Ireland                       basis' is operating a road and charging a toll for its use .
                           ( Case C-358/97 )                              As a result, such operations are an economic activity and
                                                                           hence the person carrying them out is a taxable person for
                              ( 97/C 387/ 11 )
                                                                           the purposes of the Sixth VAT Directive.
 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                The Commission submits that a transaction which falls
Justice of the European Communities on 21 October 1997                     under the scope of the Sixth VAT Directive is subject to
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 387/7
VAT \vhatever the purpose or results of that activity' as          should have been taken into account as part of Ireland's
stated in Article 4 paragraph 1 of the Directive .                 contribution to the own resources of the Communities .
                                                                   (') Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
In particular, the Commission submits that operating                   harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
motorways, inland waterways and port facilities is an                  turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
economic activity.                                                     uniform basis of assessment ( OJ L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
The case-law of the Court makes it clear that a supply of
services is subject to VAT when the service in question is
provided in return for payment, the taxable base being
everything which makes up the consideration given in
return for that service . As the Court has pointed out there       Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission
must be 'a direct link between the service rendered and            of the European Communities against the United
the consideration received '.                                              Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                Case C-359/97 )
With regard to tolls paid for the use of a road there is                                     ( 97/C 387/ 12 )
incontestably a direct link between the service rendered
and the consideration received in exchange, if payment is
levied each time a vehicle is allowed to use the road .            An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                   and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities on 21 October 1997
The fact that a private operator carries out activities            by the Commission of the European Communities,
which contribute to the general good does not prevent              represented by Helene Michard and Barry Doherty,
those activities being subject to VAT.                             members of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                   Gomez de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service,
Community definition                                               Centre Wagner.
                                                                   The Applicant claims that the Court should :
The Sixth VAT Directive imposes VAT on any 'economic
activity' of which 'supplying services' is one category. In
this context the concepts of 'supplying services' and              — declare that in not subjecting tolls for the use of
'economic activity' for the purposes of the Sixth VAT                   existing toll-roads and toll-bridges in the United
Directive must be interpreted objectively on the basis of               Kingdom to value-added tax contrary to the provisions
the economic reality of the transaction and irrespective of             of Articles 2, 4 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) of the Sixth VAT
the manner in which the transaction may be classified                   Directive (') and by failing to make available to the
under the various national legal systems . Any other                    Commission      the    amounts   of   own      resources      and
interpretation would encroach upon the uniform                          interest on late payment as a consequence of this
application of Community law.                                           infringement the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil
                                                                        its obligations under the EC Treaty,
Interpreted objectively, the concept of ' supplying services'
encompasses services supplied to users by the operators of         — order the United Kingdom to bear the costs of these
a road or other element of infrastructure used for the                  proceedings.
transport of goods or persons. This interpretation has
always been accepted by a number of Member States
notably Spain and Italy which levy VAT on all tolls paid           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
for the use of motorways and other elements of road
infrastructure . The exemption from VAT granted by
                                                                   Value Added Tax
certain Member States including Ireland therefore throws
out of balance not only the operation of the common
system of value added tax but also the contributions to            Taxable transactions
the Communities' own resources by the Member States .
                                                                   The heart of the present case is whether certain
The absence of VAT on road tolls is incompatible with              transactions are subject to VAT. As a result, it is necessary
Community rules on the collection of the Communities'              to establish the exact scope of the tax. Article 2
own resources .                                                    paragraph 1 of the Sixth VAT Directive provides that
                                                                   value added tax shall be levied on 'the supply of goods or
                                                                   services effected for consideration within the territory of
The Commission submits that if road tolls are subject to           the country by a taxable person acting as such'. Article 4
VAT, it follows that a proportion of the VAT concerned             of the same Directive provides some definitions:


title: Case C-309/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Stadtwerke Delmenhorst GmbH v Manfred Bleckwehl

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Stadtwerke Delmenhorst GmbH v Manfred Bleckwehl
   (Case C-309/17)
   (2017/C 318/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stadtwerke Delmenhorst GmbH

      Defendant: Manfred Bleckwehl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that failure to give gas customers timely and direct notice of the preconditions and reasons for and the extent of an imminent change in the tariff for gas supplies precludes the effectiveness of such a change in tariff?

               2.

               If that question is answered in the affirmative:
               Has Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, been directly applicable since 1 July 2004 to a supply undertaking incorporated under private law (as a German GmbH), because the abovementioned provisions of that directive are unconditional, so far as their subject matter is concerned, and can therefore be applied without any further implementing act, and confer rights on citizens vis-à-vis an organisation which, despite its private-law legal form, is subject to the authority of the State because the State is the sole shareholder in the undertaking?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.


title: Case T-578/10: Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Global Steel Wire v Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/29

         Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Global Steel Wire v Commission
   (Case T-578/10)
   2011/C 55/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola des Vallés, Spain) (represented by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel);

               —

               in the alternative, annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 2 of the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel) insofar as it entails an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in not having extended to GSW the additional period for payment of the fine, and fails to state reasons; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already raised in Case T-575/10 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission.


title: Case T-293/07 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Alessandro Lofaro against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 24 May 2007 in Joined Cases F-27/06 and F-75/06, Lofaro v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/16

         Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Alessandro Lofaro against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 24 May 2007 in Joined Cases F-27/06 and F-75/06, Lofaro v Commission
   (Case T-293/07 P)
   (2007/C 223/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Alessandro Lofaro (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well founded and, accordingly,

               —

               set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal in Cases F-27/06 and 75/06 delivered on 24 May 2007;

               —

               rule on the merits and uphold the appellant's original application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and, in particular, as regards the period laid down for lodging the complaint and the date to be taken into account for the expiry of that period. The appellant claims that the Tribunal's interpretation prejudices general principles of Community law, such as the principle of legal certainty, of non-discrimination and of proportionality, as well as the rights of the appellant. He further submits that the Tribunal did not respond to all the pleas put forward by him in his actions and that, accordingly, the order is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which is inadequate and incorrect.


title: Case C-465/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration v Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de l’Indre (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3 — Structural Funds — Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Contracting authority in receipt of a subsidy from the Structural Funds — Failure to comply with public procurement rules by the recipient of an ERDF subsidy — Basis for the obligation to recover European Union subsidies in the case of an irregularity — Concept of ‘irregularity’ — Concept of ‘continuous irregularity’ — Conditions for recovery — Limitation period — Longer national limitation periods — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration v Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de l’Indre
   (Case C-465/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3 - Structural Funds - Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Contracting authority in receipt of a subsidy from the Structural Funds - Failure to comply with public procurement rules by the recipient of an ERDF subsidy - Basis for the obligation to recover European Union subsidies in the case of an irregularity - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Concept of ‘continuous irregularity’ - Conditions for recovery - Limitation period - Longer national limitation periods - Principle of proportionality)
   2012/C 49/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration

      Respondent: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de l’Indre

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9), Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 (OJ 1988 L 374, p.1) and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Failure by a recipient of subsidies paid under the ERDF and the FNADT to observe public procurement rules — Basis of the obligation to recover Community aid in cases of irregularity — Conditions for recovery of aid wrongly paid — Limitation period

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, the third indent of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1998 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993, constitutes a legal basis enabling national authorities to recover from the recipient — without there being any need for authority to do so under national law — the whole of a subsidy granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) on the ground that, in its capacity as ‘contracting authority’, within the meaning of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993, the recipient has not complied with the requirements of that directive so far as concerns the award of a public service contract whose purpose was the implementation of the operation for which the recipient was granted the subsidy.

               2.

               The failure, by a contracting authority that receives an ERDF subsidy, to comply with the public procurement rules laid down by Directive 92/50 when awarding the contract whose purpose is to implement the subsidised operation constitutes an ‘irregularity’, within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, even if the competent national authority could not have been unaware, when the subsidy was granted, that the recipient had already decided which provider it would entrust with the implementation of the subsidised operation.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where, in its capacity as contracting authority, the recipient of an ERDF subsidy has not complied with the public procurement rules of Directive 92/50 when awarding the contract whose purpose is to implement the subsidised operation:

                           —

                           the irregularity in question must be considered to be a ‘continuous irregularity’, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, and, consequently, the limitation period of four years laid down by that provision to recover the subsidy wrongly paid to the recipient begins to run from the day on which the performance of the unlawfully awarded public contract is completed;

                           —

                           the transmission to the recipient of the subsidy of an audit report finding there to have been a failure to comply with the public procurement rules and recommending, as a result, that the national authority demand repayment of the sums paid constitutes a sufficiently specific act relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the ‘irregularity’, within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95.

               4.

               Where the Member States exercise the right afforded them by Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95, the principle of proportionality precludes application of a 30-year limitation period to the recovery of an advantage wrongly obtained from the European Union budget.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 July 1996 in Case T-76/96 R: The National Farmers' Union and Others v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/23
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 12 July 1996                                                           of 13 July 1996
in Case T-52/96 R: Sogecable SA v. Commission of the                 in Case T-76/96 R: The National Farmers ' Union and
                    European Communities                               Others v. Commission of the European Communities C )
                         ( 96/C 269/54 )                                                          ( 96/C 269/55 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                     In Case T-76/96 R: The National Farmers' Union, having its
                                                                     headquarters in London, International Traders Ferry
In Case T-52/96 R: Sogecable SA, established in Madrid,              Limited, having its registered office in Tortola (British
represented by Santiago Martinez Lage and Rafael                     Virginia Islands ), UK Genetics, having its registered office
Allendesalazar Corcho, of the Madrid Bar, with an address            in Narrowcombe, Islington, Newton Abbott ( United
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,             Kingdom ), R. S. and E. M. Wright Limited, having its
31 Grand-Rue, against Commission of the European                     registered office at Mountfarm, Ashby de Launde, Lincoln
Communities ( Agent: Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ),              ( United Kingdom ), Prosper De Mulder Limited, having its
supported by Cableuropa SA, established in Madrid , Cable i          registered office in Doncaster ( United Kingdom ),
Televisió de Catalunya SA, established in Barcelona , Spain,         represented by Stuart Isaacs QC and Clive Lewis, Barristers ,
Santander de Cable SA, established in Santander, Spain, and          and by Burges Salmon, Solicitor, with an address for service
Jerez de Cable SA, established in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain,       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger Hoss &
represented by Ramon García-Gallardo, Josep Maria Julia              Prussen, 15 cote d'Eich, supported by the United Kingdom
and Julio Veloso , of the Madrid Bar, of J. & B. Cremades y          of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents : Lindsey
Asociados , 391 avenue Louise, Brussels , and by Antena 3            Nicoll and Karel Paul Lasok ) v. Commission of the
TV SA, established in Madrid , represented by Rafael                  European Communities ( Agents : Dierk Boos, Xavier Lewis
Jimenez de Parga , of the Barcelona Bar, Aurelio Pappalardo,         and James Macdonald Flett ) — application for suspension
 of the Trapani Bar, and Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar,            of operation of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against
 of Alain Lorang, 51 rue Albert I — application for                   bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( 2 ), the President of the
 suspension of the operation of the decision adopted by               Court of First Instance made an order on 13 July 1996 , the
 the Commission on 8 February 1996 ( IV/M.0709                        operative part of which is as follows :
 Telefónica/Canal Plus/Cablevisión ) pursuant to Council
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the
 control of concentrations between undertakings and for               1 . Prosper De Mulder Limited shall be removed from the
 interim measures restraining the Commission from                           list of applicants in the proceedings for interim relief;
 adopting any act or decision under Articles 8 , 13 , 14 and 15
 of that Regulation until such time as the Court of First
 Instance has ruled on the validity of the decision contested in
 the main proceedings — the President of the Court of First           2 . the United Kingdom is given leave to intervene in
 Instance made an order on 12 July 1996 , the operative part                support of the form of order sought by the applicants in
 of which is as follows :                                                   the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                      3 . the application for interim relief is dismissed;
  1 . the interim application is dismissed;
                                                                      4.    the costs are reserved.
 2.   costs are reserved.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 , p. 22 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996 , p . 47 .


title: Case T-638/13: Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/38

         Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)
   (Case T-638/13)
   2014/C 52/73
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 787/2012-4;

               —

               Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL’ in red, gold, white and black for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 037 909

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade mark registration No 291 655 for the word mark ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known Spanish and Portuguese word mark ‘BIMBO’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1), (2) and (5) CTMR


title: Case C-585/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sugar — Production levies — Calculation of the average loss — Calculation of production levies — Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 — Validity — Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 — Validity)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/20

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v État belge
   (Case C-585/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sugar - Production levies - Calculation of the average loss - Calculation of production levies - Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 - Validity))
   (2017/C 104/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA

      Defendant: État belge

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the average loss, it is necessary to divide the total amount of the actual expenditure for export refunds for products which come under that provision by the total amount of the quantities of those products which were exported, regardless of whether or not refunds have in fact been paid for the latter.

               2.

               Article 33(2) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of the overall calculation of the production levies, it is necessary to take into account the average loss calculated by dividing the total amount of the actual expenditure for export refunds for products which come under that provision by the total amount of the quantities exported for those products, regardless of whether or not refunds have in fact been paid for the latter.

               3.

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 of 12 October 2000 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for calculating the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 1999/2000 marketing year and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 of 11 October 2001 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2000/2001 marketing year are invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-592/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL v État belge

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL v État belge
   (Case C-592/16)
   (2017/C 038/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL

      Defendant: État belge

      Questions referred

   ‘Is the fact that a company issuing a share option may record as income the purchase price of that option in the course of the financial year in which that option is taken up or at the end of its period of validity, in order to take into account the risk borne by the option issuer which results from the commitment he makes, [rather than] in the course of the tax year in which the option is purchased and its final price set — the risk borne by the issuer being valued separately by the recording of a provision — compatible with the accounting rules concerning balance sheets laid down by the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.08.1978, p. 11), according to which:

               —

               the annual accounts are to give a true and fair view of the company's assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss (Article 2(3) of the Directive);

               —

               provisions for liabilities and charges are intended to cover losses or debts the nature of which is clearly defined and which at the date of the balance sheet are either likely to be incurred, or certain to be incurred but uncertain as to amount or as to the date on which they will arise (Article 20(1) of the Directive);

               —

               the principle of prudence must in all circumstances be assessed, and in particular:

                           —

                           only profits made at the balance sheet date may be included;

                           —

                           account must be taken of all foreseeable liabilities and potential losses arising in the course of the financial year concerned or of a previous one, even if such liabilities or losses become apparent only between the date of the balance sheet and the date on which it is drawn up (Article 31(1) (c), (aa) and (bb) of the Directive);

               —

               account must be taken of income and charges relating to the financial year, irrespective of the date of receipt or payment of such income or charges (Article 31(1)(d) of the Directive);

               —

               the components of asset and liability items are to be valued separately (Article 31(1)(e) of the Directive);

         …?’


title: Case T-256/12: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — Hautau v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/24

         Order of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — Hautau v Commission
   (Case T-256/12) (1)

   (2015/C 178/24)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-245/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 May 2011 — K

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 May 2011 — K
   (Case C-245/11)
   2011/C 269/40
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Asylgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K

      Defendant: Bundesasylamt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 15 of Regulation No 343/2003 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State prima facie not responsible for examining the asylum claim of a person in accordance with the rules of Articles 6 to 14 of that regulation becomes automatically responsible if in that country the asylum-seeker has a daughter-in-law who is seriously ill and, on account of cultural factors, at risk or has grandchildren below the age of majority who, as a result of the daughter-in-law’s illness, are in need of care and the asylum-seeker is both willing and able to support her daughter-in-law and grandchildren? Does the same apply even if the Member State prima facie responsible has not made a request in accordance with the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 343/2003?

               2.

               Must Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 be interpreted as meaning that in the circumstances mentioned in Question 1 the Member State prima facie not responsible becomes automatically responsible if the responsibility otherwise provided for by Regulation No 343/2003 will result in an infringement of Article 3 or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 4 or Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)? In that case, in the accessory interpretation and application of Article 3 or Article 8 of the ECHR (Article 4 or Article 7 of the Charter), may more extensive notions of ‘inhuman treatment’ or ‘family’, at variance with the interpretation developed by the European Court of Human Rights, be applied?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).


title: Case T-99/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU word mark NOOSFERA — Earlier national word and figurative marks SFERA, Sfera colours and sfera CENTROS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)
   (Case T-99/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark NOOSFERA - Earlier national word and figurative marks SFERA, Sfera colours and sfera CENTROS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 251/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2014 (Case R 158/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sfera Joven and Las banderas del Mediterráneo.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sfera Joven, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case C-163/11: Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Annex Customs BVBA v Belgische Staat, KBC Bank NV

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Annex Customs BVBA v Belgische Staat, KBC Bank NV
   (Case C-163/11) (1)

   2012/C 151/41
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case T-143/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures — Democratic Republic of the Congo — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/25

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
   (Case T-143/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 178/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kasa-Vubu, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito and A. Ouannès, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336 I, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-480/10: Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/24

         Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-480/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/41
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by in practice limiting the regime for value added tax (VAT) groups to providers of financial services and insurance services, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Swedish rules on VAT groups are contrary to Article 11 of the VAT Directive, since the application of the rules is limited to undertakings which are active within the financial sector. In the view of the Commission, national regimes for VAT groups must apply to all undertakings which are established in the Member State applying the arrangements, irrespective of the type of activity carried out by the undertaking.
   The common system of VAT is a uniform system. Introduction of a special regime into that system must consequently, in principle, be done in such a way that the regime is generally applicable.
   There is nothing in the wording of Article 11 of the VAT Directive to indicate that a Member State can limit the application of a regime for VAT groups to certain undertakings which are active within a certain sector.
   The aim of Article 11 of the VAT Directive also tends to suggest that the provision is to be understood as applying to all undertakings in all sectors.
   Furthermore, the Swedish rules on VAT groups are incompatible with the European Union law principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-272/07: Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Surcotton v Council and Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/14

         Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Surcotton v Council and Commission

   (Case T-272/07)
   (2007/C 223/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Surcotton, SA (Cordoba, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of one million seven hundred and thirty-four thousand and twenty-seven euros (EUR 1 734 027);

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case F-104/12: Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/70

         Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-104/12)
   2013/C 26/142
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to him by the decision annulled by that judgment

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 13 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which he suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-337/94: Enso-Gutzeit Oy v. Commission of the European Communities (Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Infringement - Proof)

text:
C 209/34              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er v.                                        of 14 May 1998
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Richard Lyal and Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for              in Case T-337/94: Enso-Gutzeit Oy v. Commission of the
annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July                                European Communities (1)
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                    (Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Infringement Ð Proof)
Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ 1994, L 243,
p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended                                                 (98/C 209/72)
Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President of
the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in
which it:                                                          In Case T-337/94: Enso-Gutzeit Oy, established at
                                                                   Helsinki, represented by Ivo Van Bael and Jean-FrancËois
                                                                   Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, and CiaraÂn Keaney, Solicitor of
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth           the Law Society of Ireland, with an address for service in
    paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue
    601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under          Goethe v. Commission of the European Communities
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð                     (Agents: Hans Gerald Crossland and Richard Lyal) Ð
    Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:           application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                   601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
    The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith           OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994 p. 1), the Court (Third Chamber,
    bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not        Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in              President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki
    relation to their cartonboard activities from any              and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
    agreement or concerted practice which may have the             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
    same or a similar object or effect, including any              14 May 1998 in which it:
    exchange of commercial information:
                                                                   1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, Commission
    (a) by which the participants are directly or                      Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
          indirectly informed of the production, sales, order          proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
          backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,          33.833 Ð Cartonboard).
          costs or marketing plans of other individual
          producers.                                               2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994.
    Any scheme for the exchange of general information
    to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any
    information from wich the behaviour of individual
    producers can be identified.'.
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant                                   of 14 May 1998
    by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU
    14 000 000.                                                    in Case T-338/94: Finnish Board Mills Association
                                                                   Ð Finnboard v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
3. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining              (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
    claims.                                                        Information exchange Ð Order Ð Fine Ð Determination
                                                                   of the amount Ð Statement of reasons Ð Cooperation
                                                                                during the administrative procedure)
4. Orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay one-
    half of the Commission's costs;                                                        (98/C 209/73)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
5. Orders the Commission to bear one-half of its costs.
                                                                   In Case T-338/94: Finnish Board Mills Association Ð
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.                                          Finnboard, established at Helsinki, represented initially by
                                                                   Hans Hellmann and Hans-Joachim Voges, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                   Cologne, then solely by Hans Hellmann, with an address
                                                                   for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and


title: Case T-385/15: Action brought on 15 July 2015 — Loops v OHIM (Shape of a toothbrush)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/65

         Action brought on 15 July 2015 — Loops v OHIM (Shape of a toothbrush)
   (Case T-385/15)
   (2015/C 302/81)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Loops, LLC (Ferndale, United States) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the tridimensional mark (Shape of a toothbrush) — Application for registration No 1 187 189

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2015 in Case R 1917/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               admit the publication in the classes requested of the international registration number 1 187 198;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs which were due within the course of the Appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo Social No 1, Pontevedra, by order of that court of 28 January 1997 in the case of Mercedes Gómez Montaña v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (Renfe) (Case C-74/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 131 /5
          proceedings brought by Givenchy and pending                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo
          before a national court, in which the question of             Social No 1 , Pontevedra, by order of that court of
          the validity of Parfums Givenchy SA's selective               28 January 1997 in the case of Mercedes Gomez Montana
          distribution system was expressly raised,                     v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles
                                                                                Espaftoles (Renfe)
     — by an inaccurate assessment of the effect of the                                            ( Case C-74/97)
          contested decision on the competitive situation and
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 / 11 )
          of the importance of that criterion when deciding
          whether a person is individually concerned, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     — because the finding that Kruidvat's action was                   European Communities by order of Juzgado de lo Social
          inadmissible deprives it of full and effective legal          ( Social Court) No 1 , Pontevedra, of 28 January 1997,
          protection .                                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 20 February
                                                                        1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mercedes
                                                                        Gomez Montana v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de
— Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                         Ferrocarriles Espanoles ( Renfe ) on the following question .
                                                                        Does Directive 77/187/EEC ( 1 ) of 14 February 1977 cover
                                                                        circumstances in which the termination of a contract with
                                                                        a cleaning company results in the dismissal of the worker
                                                                        employed by the contractor and the cleaning is taken over
Appeal brought on 20 February 1997 by the French                        by the principal, a rail transport undertaking, using its
Republic against the judgment delivered on 11 December                  own employees ?
1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94                    (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
& Co. and the Commission of the European Communities
                supported by the United Kingdom
                        ( Case C-73/97 P )
                           ( 97/C 131 / 10 )                            Action brought on 19 February 1997 by Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December                                            ( Case C-75/97)
1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 / 12 )
Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94
between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
8c Co. and the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European
supported by the United Kingdom, was brought before the                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         the European Communities on 19 February 1997 by the
20 February 1997 by the French Republic, represented by                 Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Gerwin van Gerven
Catherine de Salins and Frederic Pascal , acting as agents,             and Koen Coppenholle, of the Brussels Bar, with an
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Embassy, 9 boulevard Prince Henri .                                     Freddy Brausch, 11 rue Goethe .
                                                                        The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should :
The Appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — declare the application for annulment of Decision
— partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First                     SG(96 ) 4080 final of 4 December 1996 , notified by
     Instance of 11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94 in so                      letter S/11511 of 10 December 1996 concerning
     far as that judgment dismissed the objection of                         measures of aid by the Belgian Government in the
                                                                             framework of the Maribel II/III scheme admissible and
     inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
                                                                             well founded, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In holding that the applicant undertakings are directly and              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
individually concerned by the provisions of Article 1 of                — Infringement of Articles 92 and 1 90 of the EC Treaty:
the contested Regulation, the Court of First Instance failed
to take account of either the general scope or the                      — Maribel II/III does not constitute aid
 legislative character of the Regulation which has legal
effects on all of the operators in categories A and B. The                   The Commission refers to the statement in the Belgian
applicants adduced nothing to distinguish them from other                    legislation that the measure is applied to undertakings
category A operators and justify their being regarded as                     'which are exposed to international competition'. The
 individually concerned by the Regulation .                                  Maribel II/III scheme does not, however, benefit only
                                                                             undertakings which actively engage in export; nor is it
                                                                             true that the Maribel II/III scheme benefits only sectors


title: Case C-143/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 March 2014  — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 March 2014 — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   (Case C-143/14)
   2014/C 235/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TMK Europe GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

      Question referred

   Is Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 (1) of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia invalid because the Commission, in breach of the requirements applicable to the determination of injury laid down in Article 3(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, assumed such (injury) to exist without taking into account in this regard the fact that, pursuant to an unpublished decision of 25 November 1994 (Case IV/35.304), adopted on the basis of, inter alia, Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ English Special Edition 19591962, p. 87), the Commission had carried out an investigation into the possible existence of anti-competitive practices concerning pipes and tubes of non-alloy steel which might possibly infringe Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, pp. 3 to 522) and Article 81 EC?

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.


title: Case C-388/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova

text:
C 28/10                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.1.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                           di Genova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova
                       of 16 November 2000                                                         (Case C-388/00)
in Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v                                                  (2001/C 28/18)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the                      European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
amount — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circum-                         (District Court), Genoa, of 23 October 2000, received at the
                                stances)                                   Court Registry on 16 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on
                            (2001/C 28/17)                                 the following questions:
                                                                           (1) Does Community law, in the light also of its fundamental
                   (Language of the case: German)                               principles for which there is no primary textual source,
                                                                                preclude legislation and/or national administrative prac-
                                                                                tice which — in the context of a system where matters
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          concerning conformity assessment procedures for the
                    in the European Court Reports)                              purposes of placing radio equipment on the market and
                                                                                putting such equipment into service have been delegated
In Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG,                               to the administrative authorities, to be decided merely at
established in Mayen, Germany, represented by T. Jestaedt, of                   their discretion — precludes economic operators from
the Brussels Bar and V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg,                     importing, marketing or holding in stock, with a view to
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    selling, radio equipment that has not undergone national
P. Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, appeal against the                           type-approval, and which does not admit other forms of
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                         evidence, equally reliable but less burdensome to obtain,
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of                            to prove that such equipment is in conformity with
14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94 Weig v Commission [1998]                           requirements concerning the proper use of the radio
ECR II-1235, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                 frequencies authorised under national law?
party to the proceedings being, Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal assisted by D. Schroeder) — the                (2) Does Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European Parliament
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                    and of the Council of 9 March 1999 confer on individuals
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,                        rights upon which they may rely before the national
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                     courts, where the Directive itself has not been formally
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November                        transposed into national law and the deadline for such
2000, in which it:                                                              transposition has already expired? If that question is
                                                                                answered in the affirmative, is it compatible with
1.    Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of               Article 7(2)) of Directive 1999/5/EC to maintain in force
      the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94               legislation and/or administrative practice which, after
      Weig v Commission;                                                        8 April 2000, prohibits the marketing and/or the putting
                                                                                into service of radio equipment which does not bear
2.    Fixes at EUR 1 900 000 the amount of the fine to be imposed               the national type-approval stamp, where it has been
      on Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG by Article 3 of Commission                confirmed that such equipment makes efficient and
      Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding               proper use of the radio frequencies authorised under
      under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Car-                     national law, or where it is easy to verify that this is the
      tonboard);                                                                case?
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;                               (3) On a proper construction of Article 1 of Decision
                                                                                No 3052/95/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the
4.    Orders Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs                 Council of 13 December 1995, how is the term ‘the
      and to pay two-thirds of the costs of the Commission of the               measure’ to be interpreted and does that term cover the
      European Community before the Court of Justice;                           situation where the administrative authorities, having
                                                                                seized a particular model or a particular type of product
5.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear                 which is lawfully marketed in another Member State,
      one-third of its own costs before the Court of Justice.                   continue to withhold that model or product after it has
                                                                                been ascertained by the public authorities responsible for
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                      technical checks that the good in question is in conform-
                                                                                ity with both national and Community legislation, that is
                                                                                to say, after the evidential purposes justifying the initial
                                                                                seizure have been served?
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 28/11
(4) Are penalties such as those provided for under Article 399          Pleas in law and main arguments
     of the Codice Postale Italiano (Italian Postal Regulations
     set out in Presidential Decree No 156 of 1973) compatible
     with Community law, in the light of the principles of              The Commission claims that even though there existed,
     non-discrimination and proportionality?                            within the area in question, waste-water treatment plants by
                                                                        31 December 1998, Italy should have adopted measures to
                                                                        identify the discharges for the purposes of applying Article
(1) OJ L 91 of 7.4.1999, p. 10.                                         5(5) of the directive by adapting, if necessary, the relevant
(2) OJ L 321 of 30.12.1995, p. 1.                                       plants. Italy cannot justify its delay in fulfilling its obligations
                                                                        under the directive by arguing that the main factors on the
                                                                        basis of which the present situation was to be characterised,
                                                                        for the purposes of the applicability of its obligations under
                                                                        Articles 5(2) and 5(5), have not yet been examined and
                                                                        assessed, since those obligations had been entrusted to local
                                                                        bodies (the Regions). As the Court of Justice has consistently
                                                                        held, Member States cannot rely on provisions of their own
                                                                        internal legal order in order to justify failure to respect the
                                                                        obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive.
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                As regards the exemption under Article 5(4) of the directive, it
                                                                        is clear that it cannot apply unless it can be shown that the
                                                                        minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering
                                                                        all urban waste water treatment plants in that area is of a
                         (Case C-396/00)
                                                                        certain value, which is impossible for the time being because
                                                                        there is no treatment plant in existence.
                          (2001/C 28/19)
                                                                        By declaring a state of emergency, the Italian authorities have
                                                                        shown themselves to be seriously willing to resolve the
                                                                        situation even if the Commission is concerned that, despite
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           having indicated the expected dates of completion of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 October              works, by letter of 9 July and of 27 October 1999, in reply to
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     the letter of formal notice, the latest letter of 6 April 2000
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,           makes no further mention in that respect. In any event, so far
and by Roberto Amorosi, judge on secondment to the Legal                as concerns the present case, nothing of the foregoing changes
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               the fact that Italy is in breach of Community law.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
                                                                        (2) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary
     to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, discharges of
     urban waste water from Milan collected in a basin
     draining into the ‘Po delta’ and ‘northwestern Adriatic
     coastal areas’, as defined by the Decree Law No 152 of
     the Italian Republic of 11 May 1999 (Provisions on the
     prevention of pollution of water and implementation of             Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Kingdom of Spain
     Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban                      against Commission of the European Communities
     waste-water treatment and Council Directive
     91/676/EEC (2) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
     protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates                                    (Case C-398/00)
     from agricultural sources), pursuant to Article 5 of
     concerning urban waste-water treatment, were subject to                                       (2001/C 28/20)
     more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment
     or equivalent described by Article 4 of that directive, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     Article 5(2) of the aforementioned directive, as laid down         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     in Article 5(5);                                                   Communities on 30 October 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                        represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
—    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 boulevard E. Servais.


title: Case T-316/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/30

         Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)
   (Case T-316/16)
   (2016/C 287/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-554S’ — Application for registration No 12 780 581

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1575/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case T-487/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2008 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (FACTORY FINISH) (Procedural issue — Community trade mark — Representation by a lawyer)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2008 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (FACTORY FINISH)
   (Case T-487/07) (1)

   (Procedural issue - Community trade mark - Representation by a lawyer)
   (2008/C 327/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Application under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance for W. Johnston to be allowed to act as representative of the applicant in the present case.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for the Court of First Instance to allow W. Johnston to act as representative of Imperial Chemical Industries plc is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-710/16: Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (AEROBATIX)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/27

         Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (AEROBATIX)
   (Case T-710/16)
   (2016/C 462/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: La Patrouille (Pantin, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpha Industries, Inc. (Chantilly, Virginia, United States of America)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘AEROBATIX’ — Application for registration No 13 285 952

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2016 in Case R 2344/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision inasmuch as it rejected the mark applied for in respect of the goods ‘clothing, shoes; headgear’ and authorise registration of the mark applied for in respect of those goods;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Lack of likelihood of confusion

               —

               The Board of Appeal based its finding of a likelihood of confusion, in essence, on the alleged intellectual resemblances, yet they do not immediately strike the consumer.

               —

               The Board of Appeal disregarded the importance of the word element AEROBATIX which, taken together with the figurative element, is sufficient to remove all likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-175/00: Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 285/11
The applicant asserts, first of all, that the two directives referred      In August 1993 the applicant, a Community Medical Specialist
to above infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate           in Rheumatology submitted to the Commission under
expectations. It was legitimately entitled to expect, first, that          Article 3(2) of Council regulation No. 17 an application for a
the prohibition of the hormones at issue was merely a                      finding that the GMC had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the
temporary measure which was to apply pending the pro-                      EEC Treaty.
duction of an appropriate scientific assessment of the question
whether or not they presented a danger to human health and,
                                                                           The grounds and main arguments are similar to those invoked
second, that the scope of the derogations provided for in
                                                                           in case T-286/97 Goldstein/Commission (1). According to the
Directive 88/146 would be gradually extended to cover the
                                                                           applicant, the conditions laid down in Article 232 EC are
categories of animals which it proposed to import from the
                                                                           satisfied because 80 months have elapsed since it submitted,
United States into the Community.
                                                                           on 20 September 1995, his observations on the Commission’s
                                                                           letter of 9 February 1995 under Article 6 of Council Regulation
The applicant also pleads infringement of the WTO agree-                   No 99/63.
ments. It states in that regard that the European Union has
been censured by the dispute-settlement body of the WTO for
having enacted Directives 81/602, 88/146 and 96/22, on                     (1) OJ EC C 7, of 10.1.1998, p. 25.
account of infringement of the SPS agreement.
(1) OJ L 70 of 16.3.1988, p. 16.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (31 December) JO L 302, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 125 of 23.5.1996, p. 3.
                                                                           Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-176/00)
Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Goldstein
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                                (2000/C 285/23)
                          (Case T-175/00)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          (2000/C 285/22)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV, a
                   (Language of the case: English)                         company incorporated under Netherlands law, established in
                                                                           Amsterdam, represented by H.J. Bronkhorst and L.H. van
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Lennep, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo
European Communities on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Gold-                      Hemmer.
stein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
Merriman White, London.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     annul the decision of 24 February 2000 addressed to it
                                                                                by the Commission of the European Communities, in so
—     declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the                         far as Article 1(2) of that decision is concerned;
      Commission has failed to act by not having delivered a
      decision on the applicant’s complaint lodged with the                —     order the European Commission to pay the costs.
      Commission on 10 August 1993;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            In Article 1(2) of the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                           found that remission of import duties in respect of a specific
                                                                           sum was not justified.
The applicant challenges the inaction of the Commission in
relation to one complaint, focused on the alleged anti-
competitive practices on the part of the General Medical                   The applicant’s claim is based on the following grounds:
Council (GMC), a statutory body which regulates the medical
profession in the territory of the United Kingdom.                         (a)   violation of the rights of the defence:


title: Case F-31/06: Action brought on  13 March 2006  — Perez-Minayo Barroso and Pino v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/50

         Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Perez-Minayo Barroso and Pino v Commission
   (Case F-31/06)
   (2006/C 131/92)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Isabelle Perez-Minayo Barroso (Brussels, Belgium) and Marco Pino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Articles 5 and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations are unlawful;

               —

               Annul the specific decisions appointing the applicants as Administrators, in that they set their classification pursuant to Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the specific decisions to remove the points accumulated by the applicants in their former category, forming their ‘rucksack’;

               —

               Annul the specific decisions to apply a multiplier lower than 1 for the purposes of determining the applicant's remuneration;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are successful candidates in the internal competition for change of category COM/PA/04, the notice for which was published before the date when the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that date, they were appointed by the defendant to the higher category, but their previous grade, step and multiplier were retained. However, their promotion points were re-set at zero.
   In their action, the applicants submit, first, that the contested decisions infringe the legal framework formed by the notice for the competition which they passed, and Articles 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of proportionality.
   The applicants claim, second, that those decisions also infringe the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. On one hand, the classification of successful candidates in the same competition or in competitions at the same level is set at different levels depending on whether recruitment occurs before or after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations. On the other hand, the applicants are at a disadvantage compared with the officials appointed as Administrators under the certification procedure, in that the latter retain their promotion points, while the applicants' ‘rucksacks’ were re-set at zero.
   Lastly, according to the applicants, the contested decisions are contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as they were entitled to expect to be appointed to the grades given in the competition notice.