title: Case C-41/02: Action brought on 14 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 109/26               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
1.   In the case of indications of vitamin content, it is possible            applying derogations in such a way as to take no account
     to speak of an ‘average value’ within the meaning                        of the substitutive nature of enriched food or drink
     of Article 1(k) of Council Directive 90/496/EEC of                       products, with the consequence that such products
     24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs                  enriched with Vitamin A (in the form of retinoYden),
     (OJ 1990 L 276, p. 40, as amended in OJ 1991 L 140;                      vitamin D, folic acid, selenium, copper or zinc, cannot be
     ‘the nutrition labelling directive’) where the figure given,             marketed in the Netherlands since they are not substitute
     based on the manufacturer’s analysis of the food within                  products or reconstituted food or drink products within
     the meaning of Article 6(8)(a) of that directive, is the                 the meaning of the abovementioned decree on the
     value which the product has at the end of the minimum                    addition of micro-foodstuffs to food, unless the addition
     conservation period?                                                     in question presents no risk to public health and at the
                                                                              same time meets an actual need in connection with food.
2.   Does the definition of average value under Article 6(8) of
     the nutrition labelling directive leave a free choice in
     relation to the reference date and the size of permissible
     deviations?                                                        2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
3.   Is the nutrition labelling directive, in so far as it contains
     indications of the nutritional value based on vitamin
     content, to be disapplied on the ground that:
     (a)   it is too vague in relation to the definition
           (Article 1(k) of the nutrition labelling directive) and
           calculation (Article 6(8) of that directive) of average      Pleas in law and main arguments
           value, or because of the lack of reference dates or
           information as to permitted deviations; or
     (b) it contains provisions that are disproportionate to
           the objective sought?
                                                                        The system at issue concerns food in general and is therefore
                                                                        not affected by Directive 89/398/EEC (1). Nor may the ingredi-
                                                                        ents prohibited by that system be regarded as technically
                                                                        defined additives (Directives 89/107/EEC, 94/36/EC, and
                                                                        95/2/EC) (2). European Parliament and Council Directive
                                                                        No 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweet-
                                                                        eners (OJ 1995 L 61, p. 1, as amended) and European
                                                                        Parliament and Council Directive No 94/36/EC on colours for
                                                                        use in foodstuffs (OJ 1994 L 237, p. 13) The matters at issue
Action brought on 14 February 2002 by the Commission                    in the present case fall therefore to be determined solely in
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                  accordance with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty, as they
                           Netherlands                                  applied at the time of expiry of the most recent deadline
                                                                        contained in the reasoned opinions in the present Treaty —
                          (Case C-41/02)                                infringement proceedings (21 February 1999).
                         (2002/C 109/43)
                                                                        The system at issue, under which certain enriched food and
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought            drink products are banned unless a derogation is obtained
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              from the Minister of Food plainly constitutes a measure having
14 February 2002 by the Commission of the European                      equivalent effect under Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The
Communities, represented by H. Van Lier and H.M.H. Speyart,             requirements that ‘an actual food requirement must be met’ and
acting as Agents.                                                       that there be ‘no risk to public health’ entail an infringement of
                                                                        the scheme of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty since the
                                                                        result of those requirements is to impose on the person
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        applying for a derogation a disproportionate burden of proof
                                                                        in regard to the possible danger to public health which means
1.   Declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed             in practice that the derogations at issue in this case are never
     to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30 and 36 of the          granted. Moreover, the systematically applied requirement of
     EC Treaty, first, by enacting and applying Article 10(1) of        the existence of an actual food-related requirement reinforces
     the Decree on Preparation and Processing of Foodstuffs             existing national dietary patterns which in itself constitutes
     and, subsequently, also Articles 2(1) and 5 of the Decree          a disguised and therefore unlawful restriction on the free
     on the addition of micro-foodstuffs to food, and by                movement of goods. Nor does the Netherlands policy take
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/27
account of the substitutive nature of certain food and drink               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
products (such as, in particular, breakfast cereals enriched with          Stuttgart by order of that Court of 8 February 2002 in the
vitamin D).                                                                case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg against
                                                                                Elisabeth Huttenlocher
                                                                                (Case C-43/02)
(1) Council Directive 89/398 on the approximation of the laws of
    the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular
    nutritional uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27, as amended).                                           (2002/C 109/45)
(2) Council Directive 89/107/EEC on the approximation of the laws
    of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for
    use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (OJ 1989
    L 40, p. 27, as amended).                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
                                                                           (Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 11 February 2002, received at
                                                                           the Court Registry on 15 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg
                                                                           against Elisabeth Huttenlocher on the following question:
                                                                           Is the second part of Article 2 of Directive 85/577/EEC(1) to
                                                                           be interpreted as meaning that a close dependant (in this case
                                                                           an unmarried partner) is also acting ‘in the name or on behalf
                                                                           of a trader’ where that person as a consumer takes out a loan
                                                                           with a trader, the trader makes the loan subject to a security
                                                                           (assumption of joint liability), makes the requisite form
                                                                           available to that person and the borrower presents the form
                                                                           for signature to his close dependant in the residence which
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ålands För-                      they share?
valtningsdomstol by judgment of that Court of 5 February
2002 in the proceedings, brought by Diana Elisabeth
                              Lindman                                      (1) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1985, p. 31.
                           (Case C-42/02)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vantaan Kärä-
                          (2002/C 109/44)                                  jäoikeus by order of that Court of 1 February 2002 in the
                                                                             case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
                                                                                (Case C-46/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Ålands För-
valtningsdomstol (Administrative Court, Åland, Finland) of
5 February 2002, received at the Court Registry on 15 February             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceeding, brought by               European Communities by order of the Vantaan Käräjäoikeus
Diana Elisabeth Lindman on the following question:                         (District Court, Vantaa) of 1 February 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 18 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
Does Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European                    on the following questions:
Communities preclude a Member State from applying rules
under which lottery winnings from lotteries held in other                  1)    May the requirement in Article 7(1) of the directive (1) for
Member States are included in the taxable income of the                          a link between the investment and the making of the
winner on assessment to income tax, whereas lottery winnings                     database be interpreted in the sense that the ‘obtaining’
from lotteries held in the Member State in question are exempt                   referred to in Article 7(1) and the investment directed at
from tax.                                                                        it refers, in the present case, to investment which is
                                                                                directed at the determination of the dates of the matches
                                                                                and the match pairings themselves and, when the criteria
                                                                                for granting protection are appraised, does the drawing
                                                                                up of the fixture list include investment which is not
                                                                                relevant?


title: Case T-343/12: Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Grupo T Diffusión v OHIM — ABR Producción Contemporánea (Lamps)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/38

         Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Grupo T Diffusión v OHIM — ABR Producción Contemporánea (Lamps)
   (Case T-343/12)
   2012/C 287/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo T Diffusión (El Prat de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: A. Lasala Grimalt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ABR Producción Contemporánea, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2012 in Case R 1622/2010-3 concerning invalidity proceedings in respect of Community design No 000 42 7448-0001 and declare that design to be fully effective and valid, with no order for costs against Grupo T Diffusión, SA in respect of the costs of ABR and OHIM

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design for a lamp — Registered Community Design No 000 42 7448-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: ABR Producción Contemporánea, SL

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Prior design of a ‘Cypress’ standard lamp

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002


title: Case T-197/07: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Grupa Ożarów v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/38

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Grupa Ożarów v Commission
   (Case T-197/07)
   (2007/C 170/73)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Grupa Ożarów SA (represented by: P.K. Rosiak, legal adviser, and F. Puel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), in which the Commission decided that certain aspects of the Polish National Allocation Plan for CO2 Emission Allowances for 2008-2012, notified to the Commission on 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Articles 9(1) and (3), 10 and 13(2) of and the criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC. The decision in question reduces the carbon dioxide emission limit in 2008-2012 by 26.7 % compared to the limit proposed by Poland in the national allocation plan for emission allowances notified to the Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are the same as those of the applicant in Case T-195/07.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).


title: Case T-352/07: Action brought on 14 September 2007 — Commission v Rednap

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/62

         Action brought on 14 September 2007 — Commission v Rednap
   (Case T-352/07)
   (2007/C 269/113)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Rednap (Malmö, Sweden)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to

                           —

                           pay the claimant the sum of EUR 516 329,63 (five hundred and sixteen thousand three hundred and twenty-nine euros and sixty-three cents), broken down into EUR 334 375,49 in capital and EUR 181 954,14 in late payment interest for the period from the last payment date for the capital sum in accordance with the relevant debit note to 31 July 2007 inclusive;

                           —

                           pay late payment interest, from 1 August 2007 to the date on which the debt is paid in its entirety, with regard to the debt under contract DE 3010 (DE) ‘RISE’, in the daily amount of EUR 72,04 (seventy-two euros and four cents) and, with regard to the debt under contract HC 4007 (HC) ‘HEALTHLINE’, in the daily amount of EUR 37,89 (thirty-seven euros and eighty-nine cents);

               —

               pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims in the present case, which is based on an arbitration clause, that the defendant is obliged to reimburse an excess payment made by the Commission in connection with the performance of contracts No DE 3010 (DE) ‘RISE’ and No HC 4007 (HC) ‘HEALTHLINE’ concerning the information technology project in which the Commission was involved with the defendant in the latter's capacity as a member of a consortium.
   After audits of the defendant's accounts for the contracts, the Commission reached the conclusion that the defendant had not used the entire amount paid for implementation of the project. The applicant has frequently requested repayment of the outstanding amount which gives rise to this action.


title: Case C-103/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 27 February 2017 — Messer France SAS, as successor in title to Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’économie et des finances, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 27 February 2017 — Messer France SAS, as successor in title to Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’économie et des finances, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer
   (Case C-103/17)
   (2017/C 161/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Messer France SAS, as successor in title to Praxair

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’économie et des finances, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the case where a Member State has not, following the entry into force of Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003, (1) initially laid down any provision creating an excise duty on the consumption of electricity, but has maintained in force a previously-created indirect tax on such consumption, in addition to local taxes:

                           —

                           is the compatibility of the tax in question with Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 (2) and with [Directive 2003/96/EC] of 27 October 2003 to be assessed in the light of the conditions laid down by Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC for the existence of ‘another indirect tax’, that is to say, the pursuit of one or more specific purposes and compliance with certain tax rules applicable to excise duty or value added tax?

                           —

                           or is it possible to retain ‘another indirect tax’ only where a harmonised excise duty exists and finally, if so, could the contribution in question be regarded as being such a duty, its compatibility with those two directives thus falling to be assessed in the light of all of the harmonising rules which they lay down?

               2.

               Is a contribution based on the consumption of electricity, the revenue from which is allocated both to the financing of expenditure connected with the generation of electricity from renewable sources and cogeneration and to the implementation of a geographical price-balancing mechanism and a reduction in the price of electricity for low-income households, to be regarded as pursuing specific purposes within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC, as restated in Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC? (3)

               3.

               In the event that only some of the purposes pursued can be characterised as specific within the meaning of those provisions, can taxpayers nonetheless claim full reimbursement of the contribution at issue, or may they claim only a partial reimbursement based on the proportion of the overall expenditure financed by the contribution which did not relate to a specific purpose?

               4.

               If the answer to the preceding questions is such that the system of contribution to the public electricity service is, in whole or in part, incompatible with the rules on the taxation of electricity laid down by EU law, is the second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of Directive 2003/96/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, until 1 January 2009, compliance with the minimum rates of taxation laid down by Directive 2003/96/EC was, among the rules on the taxation of electricity laid down by EU law, the only obligation incumbent on France?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).


title: Case T-245/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Gamesa Eólica v OHIM — Enercon (Blended shades of green) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Absolute ground for refusal — Application for Community trade mark consisting of blended shades of green — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 62 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Gamesa Eólica v OHIM — Enercon (Blended shades of green)
   (Case T-245/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal - Application for Community trade mark consisting of blended shades of green - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 62 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 377/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Gamesa Eólica SL and Enercon GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Gamesa Eólica, SL.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-164/01 P: Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the one hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.8.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/7
      might be manifested. It is striking to note the importance        European Communities in Case T-73/94 between, on the one
      attached by the Court of Justice to the fact that in 1989,        hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the Council of
      immediately after being granted a provisional reference           the European Union and the Commission of the European
      quantity, the four producers concerned resumed milk               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
      production. That circumstance is totally disregarded in           the European Communities on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.M.
      the considerations of the Court of First Instance as              Beusmans, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat,
      contained in the contested judgment. For the rest, it             ther other parties to the proceedings being the Council of
      should be noted that, in its interim judgment in Mulder II,       the European Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the
      the Court of Justice did not deal at all with the specific        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      issues concerning the SLOM 83 producers.                          T. van Rijn.
—     The Court of First Instance incorrectly allocated the             The appellant claims that the Courts should:
      burden of proof, or at least imposed on Mr Bouma a
      burden of proof which is legally impermissible: prior to          —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
      the entry into force of Regulation No 857/84, a SLOM                    Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-73/94 (1);
      producer in Mr Bouma’s situation could not assume that,           —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
      if he did not resume production before 1 April 1984, he
      might forfeit, definitively and completely, his right to a        —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs
      reference quantity — or to alternative compensation. The                of the proceedings before both Courts.
      imposition of the burden of showing ‘that he had the
      intention of resuming milk production upon the expiry
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      of his non-marketing undertaking and that he found it
      impossible to do so owing to the entry into force of
      Regulation No 857/84’ necessarily means that Mr Bouma             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
      is faced, retroactively, with the consequences of the entry       in Case C-162/01 P.
      into force of that regulation.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1994 C 90, p. 25.
      A Community citizen in the position of Mr Bouma
      cannot reasonably be expected, some 17 to 18 years after
      the material time, still to have at his disposal written
      evidence concerning the management of his holding                 Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg
      during a period in the distant past — a fortiori since in no      against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the
      previous judgment of the Court of Justice or the Court of         Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      First Instance was any relevance attached to evidence             European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the
      concerning the points which the Court of First Instance           one hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council
      now regards as crucial.                                           of the European Union and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
—     The Court of First Instance set out and assessed the
      relevant facts in such an erroneous and biased manner                                    (Case C-164/01 P)
      that its judgment cannot be regarded as consistent with
      the obligation to provide reasons or the principle of
                                                                                (2001/C 227/11)
      objectivity.
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
(1) OJ 1993 C 334, p. 17.                                               by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
(2) Judgment of 11 December 1990 in Case C-189/89.                      European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the one
(3) OJ 1984 L 148, p. 13.                                               hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council of
                                                                        the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg,
Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.B. Beusmans                    represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat, the other
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the                parties to the proceedings being the Council of the European
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the Commission of
European Communuties in Case T-73/94 between, on the                    the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn.
one hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the                      The appellant claims that the Court s hould:
Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                   the European Communities                             —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                              Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-143/97 (1);
                        (Case C-163/01 P)                               —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                              further determination of the action brought by the
                         (2001/C 227/10)                                      appellant before the Court of First Instance on 29 April
                                                                              1997;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001             —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                   of the proceedings before both Courts.
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/8                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11.8.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                       appeared on the list of 31 March 1989, to whom a
                                                                                settlement proposal was put forward pursuant to
                                                                                Regulation No 2187/93 (2);
—     Infringement of Article 288 EC, violation of the principle
      of the protection of legitimate expectations, non-com-                    —     in the course of settlement negotiations conducted
      pliance with the obligation to provide a statement of                           after 1993 with SLOM producers not initially
      reasons and misinterpretation of the requirement of                             covered by the terms of Regulation No 2187/93
      causality, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance held                         but in respect of whom liability was subsequently
      that the damage suffered by Mr van den Berg after 13 May                        admitted, the Commission did not invoke prescrip-
      1986 was not attributable to the Community: the Court                           tion where the names of the SLOM producers
      of First Instance misconstrued the scope of the principle                       concerned appeared on the list in question, regard-
      of the protection of legitimate expectations, and applied                       less of whether or not the producers concerned had
      it in a manifestly incorrect way vis-à-vis Mr van den Berg.                     in the interim brought proceedings before the Court
      The fact is that, having in 1985-1986 deliberately taken                        of First Instance under Article 215 of the EC Treaty;
      the requisite steps to relocate his holding whilst retaining
      — had he had a ‘normal’ quota — the quota in question,                    —     in its rejoinder in Case T-179/96 Antonissen, the
      Mr van den Berg had a legitimate expectation that he                            Commission withdrew the plea of prescription
      would not be treated differently from a comparable                              initially put forward by it, after being confronted
      ‘normal’ producer merely because he was a SLOM                                  with the letter of 31 March 1989.
      producer. Furthermore, at the time when hechanged his
      holding, Mr van den Berg was entitled to expect that he             —     Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of
      would not thereafter, in 1989, be treated, on a retroactive               legal certainty, the principle of the protection of legitimate
      basis, differently from ‘normal’ producers.                               expectations and the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                reasons, inasmuch as the Gourt of First Instance ruled
                                                                                that Mr van den Berg’s claim was wholly time-barred: the
      Moreover, the Court of First Instance seriously miscon-                   Court of First Instance overlooked (i) the discrepancy
      strued the real scope of the judgment in Herbrink. If, by                 between the wording of the communication of 5 August
      way of derogation from the principle of attachment to                     1992 and that of Article 43 of the Statute and (ii) the
      the land, which forms part of the milk quota system, a                    manner in which the Commission had in practice
      departing tenant is to be permitted to take his quota with                interpreted and applied that communication in relation
      him to his new holding, a SLOM tenant should also be                      to those SLOM producers to whom the letter of 31 March
      allowed, in the same way, to take his milk quota with                     1989 had been addressed.
      him to a new holding.
—     Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of            (1) OJ 1997 C 199, p. 37.
      legal certainty, the principle of the protection of legitimate      (2) OJ 1993 L 196, p. 6.
      expectations and the obligation to provide a statement of
      reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance, when
      ruling on the question of prescription, disregarded essen-
      tial facts, or at any rate set out those facts in a manifestly
      erroneous manner in its judgment, and omitted to find
      that the Commission had waived the possibility of relying
      on a plea of prescription as against certain SLOM
      producers, including Mr van den Berg: the SLOM pro-
      ducers made it quite clear that the institutions could not          Action brought on 9 May 2001 by the Kingdom of the
      plead prescription, since the institutions must have been           Netherlands against the Commission of the European
      well aware of the fact that the case of Mulder II was                                          Communities
      meant to be a test case in relation to SLOM producers as
      a whole. There can be no doubt whatever that the
      communication of 5 August 1992 was deliberately                                               (Case C-197/01)
      framed in terms wider than those of Article 43 of the
      Statute; it is quite clear from the wording of that                                           (2001/C 227/12)
      communication that the Community waived its right to
      plead prescription in respect of periods prior to 5 August
      1992 as against any milk producer who had applied to                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      the institutions prior to that date, regardless of when that        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      happened.                                                           Communities on 9 May 2001 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                          Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and C.A.H.M.
                                                                          ten Dam, as Agents.
      The Court of First Instance failed to mention certain
      established facts in the contested judgment, in particular          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the fact that:
                                                                          1.    Annul Regulation No 396/2001 (1) of 27 February 2001
      —      prescription was not taken into consideration with                 providing for the continued application of safeguard
             regard to any of the SLOM producers whose names                    measures for imports from overseas countries and terri-


title: Case T-388/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország (CORDIO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CORDIO — Earlier Community word mark CORDIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország (CORDIO)
   (Case T-388/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CORDIO - Earlier Community word mark CORDIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 45/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Daniela Singer (Obertrubach, Germany) (represented by: B. Korom, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: A. Nagy, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2012 (Case R 1842/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt and Ms Daniela Singer

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Daniela Singer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM;

               3.

               Orders Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case C-10/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 January 2006  by Rafael De Bustamante Tello against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  25 October 2005  in Case T-368/03 Rafael De Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/28

         Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Rafael De Bustamante Tello against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-368/03 Rafael De Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-10/06 P)
   (2006/C 60/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-368/03 Rafael De Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 January 2006 by Rafael De Bustamante Tello, represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               (1)

               Declare this appeal admissible;

               (2)

               Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005;

               (3)

               Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This appeal is based on a single plea: infringement by the CFI of Community law in paragraphs 24 to 45 of the judgment under appeal. In particular, the appellant takes the view that the CFI incorrectly interpreted the term ‘circumstances arising from work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-660/13: Action brought on 13 December 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/26

         Action brought on 13 December 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
   (Case C-660/13)
   2014/C 45/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Elera, E. Finnegan, P. Mahnič Bruni, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution;

               —

               order that the effects of the decision be maintained until it is replaced; and

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By means of the application the Council has requested, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Commission's decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution (the ‘contested decision’) (1).

               2.

               The contested decision, by which the Commission empowered two of its members to sign the abovementioned Memorandum without prior authorisation by the Council, is considered by the Council to be illegal because it constitutes a violation of fundamental principles of Union law enshrined in the Treaties. More specifically, the action for annulment is based on two pleas:

                           1.

                           The Commission's decision infringes the principle of distribution of powers contained in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance.

                           2.

                           The Commission's course of action leading to the adoption of the decision and the signature of the Addendum infringes the principle of sincere cooperation contained in Article 13(2) TEU.

               3.

               As regards the first plea, by signing alone the Addendum to the MoU with Switzerland, on behalf of the Union and without prior authorisation by the Council, the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of distribution of powers set out in Article 13(2) TEU as it has taken upon itself the power to decide on the policy of the Union which is a power of the Council pursuant to Article 16 TEU, consequently breaching the principle of institutional balance.

               4.

               As regards the second plea, the Council considers that the course of action of the Commission has infringed the principle of sincere cooperation on four counts: 1) by knowingly impinging on the powers that the Council enjoys pursuant to Article 16 TEU and therefore acting in breach of the principle of distribution of powers of Article 13(2) TEU and consequently of the principle of institutional balance; 2) by knowingly and unilaterally disregarding the role of Member States in the matter, in breach of the principle of conferral of powers of Article 4(1) TEU; 3) by intentionally acting in a manner which rendered ineffectual the efforts of the Council to correct the situation created by the Commission; and 4) by knowingly acting in a manner which compromised the principle of unity in the external representation of the Union.

      (1)  Commission document C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013


title: Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paint Graphos Soc. coop. arl (C-78/08), Adige Carni Soc. coop. arl, in liquidation v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-79/08), and Ministero delle Finanze v Michele Franchetto (C-80/08) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — State aid — Tax advantages granted to cooperative societies — Categorisation as State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC — Compatibility with the common market — Conditions)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paint Graphos Soc. coop. arl (C-78/08), Adige Carni Soc. coop. arl, in liquidation v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-79/08), and Ministero delle Finanze v Michele Franchetto (C-80/08)
   (Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - State aid - Tax advantages granted to cooperative societies - Categorisation as State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC - Compatibility with the common market - Conditions)
   2011/C 311/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate (C-78/08), Adige Carni Soc. coop. arl, in liquidation (C-79/08), Ministero delle Finanze (C-80/08)

      Defendants: Paint Graphos Soc. coop. arl (C-78/08), Agenzia delle Entrate, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-79/08), Michele Franchetto (C-80/08)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 87 EC and 88 EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE) (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 1) and Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25) — Concept of aid granted the by Member States — Italian law granting tax advantages to agricultural and producers’ and workers’ cooperative societies

      Operative part of the judgment

   Tax exemptions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, granted to producers’ and workers’ cooperative societies under national legislation such as that set out in Article 11 of Decree No 601/1973 of the President of the Republic of 29 September 1973 concerning rules on tax benefits, in the version in force from 1984 to 1993, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC only in so far as all the requirements for the application of that provision are met. As regards a situation such as that which gave rise to the disputes before the referring court, it is for that court to determine in particular whether the tax exemptions in question are selective and whether they may be justified by the nature or general scheme of the national tax system of which they form part, by establishing in particular whether the cooperative societies at issue in the main proceedings are in fact in a comparable situation to that of other operators in the form of profit making legal entities and, if that is indeed the case, whether the more advantageous tax treatment enjoyed by those cooperative societies, first, forms an inherent part of the essential principles of the tax system applicable in the Member State concerned and, second, complies with the principles of consistency and proportionality.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-95/07: Action brought on 30 March 2007 — Aventis Pharma v OHIM — Altana Pharma (PRAZOL)

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/32

         Action brought on 30 March 2007 — Aventis Pharma v OHIM — Altana Pharma (PRAZOL)
   (Case T-95/07)
   (2007/C 117/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aventis Pharma SA (Antony, France) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Altana Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal OHIM dated 8 February 2007 Case R 302/2005-4 and confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 January 2005;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to bear the costs of the appellant in the present instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Altana Pharma AG

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRAZOL ’for goods in class 5 — application No 1 154 269

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘PREZAL ’for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the opposition

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal failed to compare the marks globally taking all relevant factors into account.


title: Case C-74/07 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Luciano Lavagnoli against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 November 2006 in Case T-422/04 Lavagnoli v Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/2

         Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Luciano Lavagnoli against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 November 2006 in Case T-422/04 Lavagnoli v Commission

   (Case C-74/07 P)
   (2007/C 129/02)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Luciano Lavagnoli (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and H. Kraemer, agents)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2006 in Case T-422/04;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought at first instance and, consequently, declare the application in Case T-422/04 to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               in the alternative, remit the case to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant relies on three submissions in support of his appeal.
   In his first submission, the appellant claims the Court of First Instance erred in law in its interpretation of the general implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the administrative guide to appraisal and promotion of officials inasmuch as it held, in paragraphs 53 to 75 of the contested judgment, that the abovementioned general implementing provisions do not require an automatic link between the priority points allocated to the directorates general and the merit points, in this case, and then the priority points had been correctly attributed.
   In his second submission, the applicant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in regard to procedure by refusing, in paragraphs 59 and 67 of its judgment, to accept his requests concerning the organisation of the procedure, which were to require the Commission to submit a comparison between the points awarded to officials eligible for promotion and their merit points, and the method of comparison used in order to make a comparative consideration of the merits of officials.
   In his third submission, finally the applicant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in law, in paragraphs 76 to 100 of its judgment, by misconstruing the procedure for appraisal and promotion laid down in the general implementing provisions for Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the abovementioned administrative guide and by adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.


title: Case C-330/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Piotr Zarski v Andrzej Stadnicki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Commercial lease contracts of indefinite duration — Late rent payments — Contracts concluded before the period for transposing that directive had expired — National rules — Exclusion of such contracts from the temporal scope of that directive)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/11

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Piotr Zarski v Andrzej Stadnicki
   (Case C-330/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Commercial lease contracts of indefinite duration - Late rent payments - Contracts concluded before the period for transposing that directive had expired - National rules - Exclusion of such contracts from the temporal scope of that directive))
   (2017/C 249/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Piotr Zarski

      Respondent: Andrzej Stadnicki

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the scope of that directive late payments in the performance of a contract concluded before 16 March 2013, even where those late payments occur after that date.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case C-597/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14 Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/25

         Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14 Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-597/15 P)
   (2016/C 016/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau, N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               conduct an oral hearing;

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the form of order which it seeks, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal:

               —

               Procedural errors: the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision.

               —

               Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, (1) in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable. Lastly, contrary to the view taken by the General Court, the appellant is directly and adversely affected by the Commission’s continuing failure to act.

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


title: Case C-20/04: Action brought on 23 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 59/20                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.3.2004
            —    § 1(1), § 3(1), § 35 and § 37 of the Muster-             —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                 bauordnung do not contain any sufficiently
                 clear workplace or protection rules for sky-
                 lights, and
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
            —    § 3(1) point 1, and § 20 of the Arbeitsstätten-
                 verordnung do not contain sufficiently binding
                 rules for loading ramps,
                                                                          The period prescribed for the transposition of the Directive
      b)    and also by failing to inform the Commission of the           into domestic law expired on 27 November 2002.
            amendment of the laws at issue, the Federal Republic
            of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
            Articles 3 and 10 of Council Directive 89/654/                (1) OJ L 309 of 27.11.2001, p. 1.
            EEC (1) of 30 November 1989 concerning the mini-
            mum safety and health requirements for the work-
            place (first individual directive within the meaning
            of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
      of the proceedings.
                                                                          Action brought on 23 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-20/04)
The period for implementing the directive expired on
31 December 1992 without the Federal Republic of Germany
having adopted the necessary provisions in order to comply                                         (2004/C 59/34)
with its obligations under Article 3 in conjunction with
Annex I, point 4.4, third sentence, point 10.1, first sentence,
point 10.2 and point 14.1 of the directive.
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
(1 ) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 1.
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 January
                                                                          2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Action brought on 21 January 2004 by the Commission                       the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Spain
                                                                          1.    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                           (Case C-17/04)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2002/50/EC of 6 June 2003
                                                                                adapting to technical progress Council Directive 1999/
                           (2004/C 59/33)                                       36/EC on transportable pressure equipment (1), or, in any
                                                                                event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                                French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                       that directive;
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 Janu-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana of the Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
      Directive 2001/80/EC (1) of the European Parliament and             1 January 2003.
      of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of
      emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
      combustion plants and in any event by failing to com-               (1) OJ 2002 L 149, p. 28.
      municate those measures to the Commission, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;


title: Case T-40/06: Action brought on  9 February 2006  — Trioplast Industrier v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/17

         Action brought on 9 February 2006 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission
   (Case T-40/06)
   (2006/C 96/32)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Trioplast Industrier AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: Tommy Pettersson, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul Article 1(g) of the decision in relation to the period during which the applicant is held liable for the infringement;

               —

               partially annul Article 2(f) of the decision in relation to the fine imposed which the applicant is jointly liable to pay; in the alternative, reduce the fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-26/06 Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 January 2000 in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 (applications for damages): J.M. Mulder, W.H. Brinkhoff, J.M.M. Muskens, T. Twĳnstra (C-104/89) and Otto Heinemann (C-37/90) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Additional levy on milk — Non-contractual liability — Reparation and assessment of damage)

text:
C 102/2                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              (c) Default interest at the annual rate of 8 % to be paid on
                                                                                that sum in respect of the period from the latter date to
                                                                                the date of actual payment;
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                2. (a) The Council and the Commission jointly and severally to
                         of 27 January 2000                                              pay to Mr Brinkhoff compensation in the sum of NLG
                                                                                362 383;
in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 (applications for                               (b) Interest at the annual rate of 1,85 % to be paid on that
damages): J.M. Mulder, W.H. Brinkhoff, J.M.M. Muskens,                                   sum in respect of the period from 5 May 1984 to the
T. Twijnstra (C-104/89) and Otto Heinemann (C-37/90) v                                   date of delivery of the interlocutory judgment;
Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                                (c) Default interest at the annual rate of 8 % to be paid on
                                                                                that sum in respect of the period from the latter date to
(Additional levy on milk — Non-contractual liability —                                   the date of actual payment;
             Reparation and assessment of damage)
                                                                                3. (a) The Council and the Commission jointly and severally to
                                                                                pay to Mr Muskens compensation in the sum of NLG
                           (2000/C 102/02)
                                                                                324 914;
                                                                                (b) Interest at the annual rate of 1,85 % to be paid on that
             (Languages of the case: Dutch and German)                                   sum in respect of the period from 22 November 1984
                                                                                to the date of delivery of the interlocutory judgment;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published               (c) Default interest at the annual rate of 8 % to be paid on
                    in the European Court Reports)                                       that sum in respect of the period from the latter date to
                                                                                the date of actual payment;
In Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90: J.M. Mulder, W.H.                          4. (a) The Council and the Commission jointly and severally to
Brinkhoff, J.M.M. Muskens, T. Twijnstra, represented by H.J.                             pay to Mr Twijnstra compensation in the sum of NLG
Bronkhorst, of the Hague Bar, and E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                             579 570;
the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of J. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, and Otto
Heinemann, represented by M. Düsing, Rechtsanwalt, Münster,                          (b) Interest at the annual rate of 1,85 % to be paid on that
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                             sum in respect of the period from 10 April 1985 to the
Lambert, Dupong and Konsbruck, 14a Rue des Bains, v                                      date of delivery of the interlocutory judgment;
Council of the European Union (Agents in Case C-104/89:
Arthur Brautigam and G. Houttuin and, in Case C-37/90:                               (c) Default interest at the annual rate of 8 % to be paid on
A. Brautigam) and Commission of the European Communities                                 that sum in respect of the period from the latter date to
(Agents in Case C-104/89: T. van Rijn and, in Case C-37/90:                              the date of actual payment;
D. Booss, assisted by H.-J. Rabe) — application for damages
under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the second paragraph                    — in Case C-37/90 orders:
of Article 288 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                   5. (a) The Council and the Commission jointly and severally to
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio,                              pay to Mr Heinemann compensation in the sum of
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                            DEM 17 411;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 January 2000, in which
it:
                                                                                (b) Interest at the annual rate of 1,5 % to be paid on that
                                                                                sum in respect of the period from 20 November 1984
— in Case C-104/89 orders:                                                               to the date of delivery of the interlocutory judgment;
    1. (a) The Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                                (c) Default interest at the annual rate of 7 % to be paid on
              of the European Communities jointly and severally to
                                                                                that sum in respect of the period from the latter date to
              pay to Mr Mulder compensation in the sum of NLG
                                                                                the date of actual payment;
              555 818;
                                                                              — in both cases:
         (b) Interest at the annual rate of 1,85 % to be paid on that
              sum in respect of the period from 1 October 1984 to
              the date of delivery of the interlocutory judgment;                6. Dismisses the remainder of the actions;
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/3
    7. Orders the Council and the Commission to bear their own               The rule laid down in Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of
         costs and jointly and severally to pay 90 % of the applicants’      27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-
         costs apart from the costs of the expert’s report commissioned      ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
         by the Court. The costs of that report shall be borne jointly       Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
         and severally, as to 90 %, by the Council and the                   Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
         Commission. Since the remaining 10 % of those costs is to           Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
         be borne by all of the applicants in the two cases, that            Accession of the Hellenic Republic, and by the Convention of 26
         percentage shall be borne as to 22 % each by the applicants         May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
         in Case C-104/89 and as to 12 % by Mr Heinemann.                    Portuguese Republic, conferring exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings
                                                                             having as their object tenancies of immovable property is applicable
                                                                             to an action for damages for taking poor care of premises and causing
(1) OJ C 109 of 29.4.1989. OJ C 71 of 21.3.1990.                             damage to accommodation which a private individual had rented for
                                                                             a few weeks’ holiday, even where the action is not brought directly by
                                                                             the owner of the property but by a professional tour operator from
                                                                             whom the person in question had rented the accommodation and
                                                                             who has brought legal proceedings after being subrogated to the
                                                                             rights of the owner of the property.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       The ancillary clauses relating to insurance in the event of cancellation
                                                                             and to guarantee of repayment of the price paid by the client, which
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    are contained in the general terms and conditions of the contract
                                                                             concluded between that organiser and the tenant, and which do not
                         of 27 January 2000                                  form the subject of the dispute in the main proceedings, do not affect
                                                                             the nature of the tenancy as a tenancy of immovable property within
in Case C-8/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                      the meaning of that provision of the Convention.
the Landgericht Heilbronn): Dansommer A/S v Andreas
                               Götz (1)                                      (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
(Brussels Convention — Article 16(1) — Exclusive jurisdic-
tion in proceedings having as their object tenancies of
                  immovable property — Scope)
                           (2000/C 102/03)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           in Case C-190/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Oberlandesgericht Linz): Volker Graf v Filzmoser
In Case C-8/98: reference to the Court, pursuant to the                                           Maschinenbau GmbH (1)
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the Interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-                   (Freedom of movement for workers — Compensation on
cial Matters, by the Landgericht Heilbronn (Germany) for a                   termination of employment — Refusal where a worker
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    terminates his contract of employment in order to take a job
court between Dansommer A/S and Andreas Götz — on the                                             in another Member State)
interpretation of Article 16(1) (a) of the abovementioned
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as                                              (2000/C 102/04)
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978                                          (Language of the case: German)
L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the Convention
of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), and by the Convention of 26 May 1989
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber)
composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,                    In Case C-190/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges; Advocate General: A. La                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberlandesgericht
Pergola; Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has                  (Higher Regional Court) Linz, Austria, for a preliminary ruling
given a judgment on 27 January 2000, in which it has ruled:                  in the proceedings pending before that court between Volker


title: Case C-289/08: Action brought on 1 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/33

         Action brought on 1 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-289/08)
   (2008/C 223/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not drawing up an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive;

               —

               order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that drawing up an emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC is a fundamental requirement of that directive. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive since it has not drawn up such plans for eight operational establishments situated on its territory.

      (1)  OJ 1997, L 10, p. 13.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2000 in Case T-87/98: International Potash Company v Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duties — Fixed duty combined with a variable duty — Dumping margin — Principle of proportionality — Statement of reasons)

text:
9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
                     of 29 September 2000
                                                                         in Case T-187/98: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-87/98: International Potash Company v Council
                   of the European Union (1)                                 (Officials — Promotions — Mobility — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/47)
(Anti-dumping duties — Fixed duty combined with a variable
duty — Dumping margin — Principle of proportionality —
                      Statement of reasons)                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-187/98: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie, an official
                         (2000/C 355/46)                                 in the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                         Brussels, represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         L. Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
                  (Language of the case: English)                        F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for, first, the annulment
                                                                         of the decision of 6 April 1998 not to promote the applicant
                                                                         to Grade A 5 during the 1998 promotions and, secondly,
                                                                         compensation for material and non-material damage caused
In Case T-87/98: International Potash Company, established in            to the him as a result of his non-promotion — the Court
Moscow (Russia), represented by J.F. Bellis and R. Luff, of the          of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Her-
Chambers of A.F. Brausch, 8 Rue Zithe, against Council of the            zig, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H. J. Rabe and                     3 October 2000, in which it:
G. Berrisch), supported by the Commission of the European
Communities (Agents V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan) and by the                1.    dismisses the application.
European Potash Producers’ Association, represented by
D. and D. Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for              2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Lucius, 6 Rue
Michel Welter — application for annulment of Article 1 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 449/98 of 23 February 1998                    (1) OJ No C 20 of 23.1.99.
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 in respect of definitive
anti-dumping duties on imports of potassium chloride orig-
inating in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (OJ 1998 L 58, p. 15)
— the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: M.K. Lennaerts, President, and
J. Azizi, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 29 September 2000 in which it:                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 October 2000
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                         in Case T-178/98: Fresh Marine Company SA v Com-
2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of the               mission of the European Communities (1)
      Council and the European Potash Producers’ Association;
                                                                         (Provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties —
                                                                         Farmed Atlantic salmon — Non-contractual liability of the
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                                    Community)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/48)
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case T-178/98: Fresh Marine Company SA, established in
                                                                         Trondheim, Norway, represented by J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais,


title: Case C-378/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 22 June 2017 — Minister for Justice and Equality, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 22 June 2017 — Minister for Justice and Equality, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission
   (Case C-378/17)
   (2017/C 283/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Minister for Justice and Equality, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána

      Defendant: Workplace Relations Commission

      Question referred

   Where

               a)

               a national body is established by law and has a general jurisdiction conferred on it to inter alia ensure enforcement of Union law in a particular area; and

               b)

               national law would require that such body not have jurisdiction in a limited category of case where an effective remedy would require the disapplication of national legislation on the basis of national or European law; and

               c)

               appropriate national courts would have a jurisdiction to make any appropriate order disapplying national legislation which was required to ensure compliance with the measure of European law in question, would have jurisdiction to entertain cases in which such a remedy was necessary, would have jurisdiction in such cases to provide any remedy mandated by Union law and where the remedy provided in the courts has been assessed, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, as complying with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness,

         Must the statutory body concerned nonetheless be taken to have a jurisdiction to entertain a complaint that national legislation was in breach of relevant Union law and, if upholding that complaint, disapply that legislation notwithstanding that national law would confer the jurisdiction in all cases, involving challenges to the validity of legislation on any ground or requiring the disapplication of legislation, on a court established under the Constitution rather than the body in question?


title: Case T-64/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/28

         Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Good Luck Shipping v Council
   (Case T-64/14)
   2014/C 93/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC (Queen's Counsel), M. Lester, Barrister and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3);

               —

               Declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP (1) of 10 October 2013 and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 (2) of 10 October 2013 (‘the October Measures’);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the October Measures should be declared inapplicable in so far as they apply to the applicant, and they have no proper legal basis.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata, and non-discrimination.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached its duty to give reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s rights of defence.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in its assessment that any of the listing criteria are fulfilled as regards the applicant, and has failed to provide any evidence justifying the applicant’s designation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to respect for reputation and property.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting the applicant in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers.

      (1)  Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1)


title: Case C-226/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2014  — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2014 — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-226/14)
   2014/C 303/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eurogate Distribution GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Questions referred

               –

               Question 1: Is it inconsistent with the provisions of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to levy import turnover tax for goods which have been reexported as non-Community goods for which, however, a customs debt is incurred due to a breach of obligation under Article 204 of the Customs Code (2) — in this case: delay in the fulfilment of the obligation to record the removal of the goods from a customs warehouse in the appropriate stock records, at the latest at the time of their removal?
               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative:

               –

               Question 2: Do the provisions of Directive 77/388/EEC require the levy of import turnover tax for the goods in such cases or do Member States have a margin of discretion in this respect?
               and

               –

               Question 3: Is a customs warehouse maintainer who, on the basis of a relationship involving the provision of services, stores a good from a third country in his customs warehouse without having that good at his disposal liable to pay import VAT, which is incurred as a result of his breach of obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 10(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC in conjunction with Article 204(1) of the Customs Code, even if the good is not used for the purposes of his taxable transactions within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC?

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

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.