title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 December 1996 in Case C-85/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Köln-West (Value added tax - Interpretation of Article 18 (1) (a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Deduction of input tax paid - Obligation of the taxable person - Possession of an invoice)

text:
8 . 2 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 40 / 3
expenditure for 1991 of the European Agricultural                     other document serving as an invoice that fulfils the
Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee                      criteria determined by the Member States themselves, and
Section ( OJ No L 35,2, 31 . 12 . 1994, p. 82 ) — the Court           confer on them the power to require production of the
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of            original invoice in order to establish the right to deduct
the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth             input tax, as well as the power, where a taxable person no
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch , H.              longer holds the original, to admit other evidence that the
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                    transaction in respect of which the deduction is claimed
Colomer, Advocate-General ; Fl . von Holstein , Deputy                actually took place.
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
5 December 1996 , in which it:                                        O OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
1 . dismisses the action ;
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 December 1996
                                                                      in Joined Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95 ( references for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of
                                                                      England and Wales, Chancery Division, Patents Court ):
                                                                      Merck & Co . Inc. and Others v. Primecrown Ltd and
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      Others and Beecham Group pic v. Europharm of Worthing
                      of 5 December 1996                                                            Ltd (')
in Case C-85/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             (Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal — Interpretation
the Bundesfinanzhof): John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Köln                of Articles 47 and 209 — End of transitional period —
                              West (')                                Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — Parallel imports of
 (Value added tax — Interpretation of Article 18 (1 ) (a) of                           unpatentable pharmaceuticals)
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/06 )
input tax paid — Obligation of the taxable person —
                   Possession of an invoice)
                           ( 97/C 40/05 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: German)                        In Joined Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95 : references to the
                                                                      Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the High
                                                                      Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division,
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Patents Court, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
           published in the European Court Reports)                   pending before that court between Merck & Co . Inc .,
                                                                      Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd, Merck Sharp & Dohme
 In Case C-85/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           International Services BV and Primecrown Ltd, Ketan
 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof for a                      Himatlal Mehta , Bharat Himatlal Mehta, Necessity
 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             Supplies Ltd and between Beecham Group and Europharm
 court between John Reisdorf and Finanzamt Köln-West —                of Worthing Ltd — on the interpretation of Article 47 and
 on the interpretation of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth         Article 209 of the Act concerning the Conditions of
 Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                   Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
 harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating               Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties ( OJ No
 to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :                L 302, 15 . 11 . 1985 , p. 23 ), and of Articles 30 and 36 of
 uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977,            the EC Treaty, the Court composed of : G. C. Rodriguez
 p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.              Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. L. Murray and L.
 Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of the                  Sevón , Presidents of Chambers, C. N. Kakouris, C.
 Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet               Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
 and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H. A.            and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-
 Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment
 judgment on 5 December 1996 , the operative part of                   on 5 December 1996 , in which it rules :
 which is as follows :
                                                                       1 . The transitional periods provided for in Articles 47
 Article 18 (1 ) (a) and Article 22 (3) of the Sixth Council               and 209 of the Act concerning the Conditions of
 Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                                 Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
 harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                    Republic and the Adjustments of the Treaties expired
  to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                     on 6 October 1995 in the ease of the Kingdom of
  uniform basis of assessment permit the Member States to                   Spain and on 31 December 1994 in the case of the
  regard as an invoice not only the original but also any                   Portuguese Republic.


title: Case T-601/15: Order of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CEVA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Technological research and development project in the area entitled ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’ — SEABIOPLAS contract — Demand for payment of the financial contribution due — Offsetting — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/32

         Order of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CEVA v Commission
   (Case T-601/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Technological research and development project in the area entitled ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’ - SEABIOPLAS contract - Demand for payment of the financial contribution due - Offsetting - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 251/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: E. De Boissieu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission pay the first instalment of the grant due to the applicant under the SEABIOPLAS contract (reference FP7-SME-2013-606032-SEABIOPLAS) concerning a technological research and development project in the area entitled ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015


title: Case F-30/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 March 2007 — Sundholm v Commission (Officials — Evaluation — Career development report — 2003 assessment procedure — Obligation to state the reasons on which the report is based — Rights of the defence)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/54

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 March 2007 — Sundholm v Commission
   (Case F-30/05) (1)

   (Officials - Evaluation - Career development report - 2003 assessment procedure - Obligation to state the reasons on which the report is based - Rights of the defence)
   (2007/C 82/113)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, then S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Barardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, Agents, assisted by F. Herbert and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's staff development report for the 2003 assessment procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193 of 6.8.2005, p. 31 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-197/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-500/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, Fruition Po Ltd v Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 — Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producer organisations — Conditions for recognition by national authorities — Provision of technical resources required for storage, packing and marketing of produce — Whether organisation obliged, in the event of delegation of its tasks to third party companies, to exercise control over those companies)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, Fruition Po Ltd v Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health
   (Case C-500/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 - Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 - Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Fruit and vegetables - Producer organisations - Conditions for recognition by national authorities - Provision of technical resources required for storage, packing and marketing of produce - Whether organisation obliged, in the event of delegation of its tasks to third party companies, to exercise control over those companies)
   2014/C 52/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, Fruition Po Ltd

      Defendant: Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ L 297, p. 1) and of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ L 203, p. 18) — Conditions for recognition by national authorities — Provision of the technical means necessary for storing, packaging and marketing produce — Whether the organisation is obliged, in cases of substantial delegation of duties to third party companies, to exercise control over those companies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2699/2000 of 4 December 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that in order that a producer organisation which has entrusted to a third party the carrying out of the activities which are essential to its recognition under that provision can meet the conditions for recognition laid down therein, it is obliged to enter into a contractual agreement enabling it to continue to be responsible for the carrying out of those activities and for control of their overall management, in such a way that that organisation retains, ultimately, the power of control and, when necessary, the power to take timely action as regards those activities being carried out for the entire duration of the agreement. It is for the competent national court or tribunal to determine, in each case and taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including the nature and extent of the outsourced activities, whether the producer organisation concerned has retained such control.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case C-506/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp AG v European Commission

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp AG v European Commission
   (Case C-506/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 303/41
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


C 213/44                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
        Removal from the register of Case T-35/02 (1)                               Removal from the register of Case T-62/03 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 213/88)                                                             (2003/C 213/90)
                    (Language of the Case: Italian)                                             (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 8 April 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-35/02: Alitalia             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— Linee Aeree Italiane SpA v Commission of the European                     ordered the removal from the register of Case T-62/03: Georges
Communities.                                                                Vassilakis v Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.05.2002.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
        Removal from the register of Case T-103/02 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-85/03 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 213/89)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/91)
                   (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-103/02: Ineos
                                                                            of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Phenol GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European
                                                                            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/03:
Communities.
                                                                            Government of the Cayman Islands v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 124 of 24.05.2003.


title: Case C-392/15: Action brought on 20 July 2015 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/26

         Action brought on 20 July 2015 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-392/15)
   (2015/C 302/34)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and Talabér-Ritz K., acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by making the exercise of the profession of notary public subject to a nationality requirement.

               —

               Order Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that a nationality requirement for the exercise of the profession of notary public is discriminatory and constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of establishment. Hungary has failed thereby to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   The Commission considers that the tasks conferred by Hungarian legislation on notaries public, by their nature, are not related to the exercise of the powers of a public authority, so that the derogation provided for in Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union cannot justify nationality as a requirement for access to the profession of notary public.


title: Case C-292/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde, Marina Stöffler v Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt (Income tax — Tax credit for dividends paid by resident companies — Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde, Marina Stöffler v Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt
   (Case C-292/04) (1)

   (Income tax - Tax credit for dividends paid by resident companies - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)
   (2007/C 95/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde, Marina Stöffler

      Defendant: Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Income-tax rules providing for a ‘tax credit ’for dividends distributed by national companies but not for dividends distributed by companies which have their seat in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 56 EC and 58 EC are to be interpreted as precluding tax legislation under which, on a distribution of dividends by a capital company, a shareholder who is fully taxable in a Member State is entitled to a tax credit, calculated by reference to the corporation tax rate on the distributed profits, if the dividend-paying company is established in that same Member State but not if it is established in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.


title: Case T-387/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013 — Nitrogénművek Vegyipari v Commission (State aid — Banking sector — Loans guaranteed by Hungary and granted by a development bank — Decision declaring the aid measures partly incompatible and ordering their recovery — Private investor test)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013 — Nitrogénművek Vegyipari v Commission
   (Case T-387/11) (1)

   (State aid - Banking sector - Loans guaranteed by Hungary and granted by a development bank - Decision declaring the aid measures partly incompatible and ordering their recovery - Private investor test)
   2013/C 108/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt. (Pétfürdő, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Tamás and M. Le Berre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/269/EU of 27 October 2010 on State aid C-14/09 (ex NN 17/09) granted by Hungary to Péti Nitrogénművek Zrt. (OJ 2011 L 118, p. 9).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-337/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-550/15 Portugal v Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/11

         Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-550/15 Portugal v Commission
   (Case C-337/16 P)
   (2016/C 326/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Other party: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings;

               —

               Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese Republic considers that the decision is invalid on the following grounds:

      A — First ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the decision of 20 July 2015

      First argument

   Infringement of Article 263 TFEU.

      Second argument

   Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of notification of the final decision on 20 July 2015.

      B — Second Ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of publication of the contested decision in the Official Journal

      First argument

   The wording of Article 263(6) TFEU.

      Second argument

   The consistent practice of publishing such decisions and identical prior legal proceedings.

      C — Third Ground — The General Court erred in law in so far as it did not favour an interpretation that did not result in lapse of the right to bring proceedings


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 9 January 2003 in Case C-177/00: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 to 1998 financial years — Export refunds — Olive oil — Sale of intervention alcohol)

text:
C 44/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the          L 67, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic, the
      European Communities of 15 December 1999 in Joined Cases               Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
      T-33/98 and T-34/98 Petrotub and Republica v Council;                  of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
                                                                             F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
2.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November               L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of             a judgment on 24 June 2000, in which it:
      certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
      originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic,
      Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC)            1.    Dismisses the application;
      No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such
      imports originating in the Republic of Croatia in so far as it         2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      concerns Petrotub SA and Republica SA;
3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs              (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
      incurred by Petrotub SA and Republica SA both in the present
      proceedings and in the proceedings at first instance which
      culminated in the judgment in Petrotub and Republica v
      Council, cited above;
4.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
      its own costs both in the present proceedings and in the
      proceedings at first instance which culminated in the judgment
      in Petrotub and Republica v Council.                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
( 1) OJ C 135 of 15.5.2000.                                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 January 2003
                                                                             in Case C-177/00: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 to 1998 financial
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    years — Export refunds — Olive oil — Sale of intervention
                                                                                alcohol)
                          of 9 January 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 44/07)
in Case C-157/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1996 to 1998 —
             Export refunds — Fruit and vegetables)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                           (2003/C 44/06)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           In Case C-177/00: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
                                                                             by D. Del Gaizo) against Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Visaggio, assisted by
                    in the European Court Reports)                           A. Dal Ferro) — application for partial annulment of the
                                                                             Commission’s Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 exclud-
                                                                             ing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
                                                                             by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
In Case C-157/00, Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos                  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
and I. K. Chalkias, also by C. Tsiavou) v Commission of                      (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37) in so far as it made financial adjustments
the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande):                         to certain expenses declared by Italy — the Court of Justice
Application for partial annulment of Commission                              (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of
Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 excluding from                          the Chamber, and D.A.O. Edward, A La Pergola, P. Jann
Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the                      (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European                    General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 January
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000                    2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 44/5
1.    Dismissed the action;                                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Ordered the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                                of 9 January 2003
                                                                             in Case C-257/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the l’Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Nani Givane and
                                                                              Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)
          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    (Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                             1251/70 — Right of workers to remain in the territory of a
                                                                             Member State after having been employed in that State —
                         of 9 January 2003                                   Right of residence of members of the family of a deceased
                                                                             worker — Requirement of the worker’s continuous residence
in Case C-178/00: Italian Republic v Commission of the                                              for at least two years)
                   European Communities ( 1)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year                                                    (2003/C 44/09)
— Cereals — Durum wheat — Soft wheat, barley and corn)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2003/C 44/08)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-257/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                   in the European Court Reports)                            EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for
                                                                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Nani Givane and Others and Secretary of State
                                                                             for the Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 3(2)
In Case C-178/00: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted               of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970
by D. Del Gaizo) against Commission of the European                          on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member
Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Visaggio, assisted by                State after having been employed in that State (OJ, English
A. Dal Ferro) — application for partial annulment of the                     Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Commission’s Decision 2000/197/EC of 1 March 2000                            composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the                        C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the                    (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European                Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 January 2003, in which
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000                    it has ruled:
L 61, p. 15) in so far as it made financial adjustments to certain
expenses declared by Italy — the Court of Justice (Fifth
Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
er, and D.A.O. Edward, A La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and                On a proper construction of the first indent of Article 3(2) of
                                                                             Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970 on
S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 January 2003, in which it:                   the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after
                                                                             having been employed in that State the period of two years’ continuous
                                                                             residence required by that provision must immediately precede the
1.    Dismissed the action;                                                  worker’s death.
2.    Ordered the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case F-73/07: Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Doktor v Council

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/29

         Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Doktor v Council
   (Case F-73/07)
   (2007/C 235/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: František Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, R. Albelice and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period adopted on 24 October 2006 by the appointing authority of the Council, taken together with the decision adopted on 16 May 2007 by the appointing authority dismissing the complaint brought by the applicant;

               —

               direct the appointing authority as to the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions and in particular the possibility of completing a second probationary period in another service or the prolongation of the probationary period with the transfer to a post without head-of-unit responsibility at the end of which there would be a new assessment of the applicant's qualifications;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the loss suffered, both professional and financial (salary and associated benefits which he would have received from 1 November 2006 to the date of his re-employment resulting from the annulment of the contested decision) and non-pecuniary (by reference to an indicative sum of EUR 50 000);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first of which alleges (i) infringement of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, (ii) breach of the duty of have regard to the welfare of officials and (iii) breach of the principle of sound administration. In particular, his probationary period took place in conditions which were unusual and contrary to various internal procedural rules.
   The second plea in law alleges breach of the obligation to state reasons, in that the decision to dismiss did not contain explanations and relied on statements which were contradictory and less favourable than those which appeared in the first probationary report.
   In the third plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision to dismiss was disproportionate and vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, in that, first, it did not take into account the results of certain personality tests and, secondly, a negative evaluation as head of unit, even were it to be well founded, should have led only to transfer to a post without such responsibilities.
   In his fourth plea in law, the applicant relies on breach of the rights of the defence and of the principle of equal treatment, in that the decision to dismiss was taken on the basis of reports adopted without his first being heard and of which the last was finalised in breach of the applicable procedural rules.


title: Case T-217/17: Action brought on 3 April 2017 — FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/20

         Action brought on 3 April 2017 — FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission
   (Case T-217/17)
   (2017/C 202/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) and 27 other applicants (represented by: A. Reuter, H. Wendt, C. Bürger, T. Christner, W. Schumacher, A. Compes and T. Herbold, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               to declare void the defendant’s Decision C(2016) 7827 final of 28 November 2016, State Aid SA.40171 (2015/NN) (1), concerning the promotion of electricity production from renewable energy sources in the Czech Republic; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging by its letter of July 2004 to the relevant industry associations the defendant has already decided that the Czech Republic’s RE promotion scheme does not constitute State aid, and Defendant is, as a matter of law, bound to this decision, which it has not revoked and is not allowed to revoke.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of applicants’ legitimate expectations and certainty of law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the relevant Czech promotion scheme does not constitute State aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision forces the Czech Republic to implement an overreaching review mechanism which violates the applicants' legitimate expectations in the reliability of the scheme.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on errors in fact in that it finds an obligation of the grid operators to pass on RE cost to power customers. There was no such obligation under Czech law.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates article 5 paragraph 1 of the EU Treaty (limitation of competences by the principle of conferral).

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on manifest error of assessment.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 2017, p. 2


title: Case C-271/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2012 — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2012 — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge
   (Case C-271/12)
   2012/C 243/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens

      Defendant: État belge

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a Member State entitled to refuse to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, but which have been supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, the nature and the amount of the transactions invoiced (contracts, reconstitution of figures on the basis of declarations made to the national social security institution, information on the functioning of the group involved, …)?

               2.

               Must a Member State which refuses, on the basis of inaccuracies in invoices, to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services not find that the invoices are then also too inaccurate to allow payment of the VAT? Consequently, is a Member State not required, in order to safeguard the principle of neutrality of VAT, to repay the VAT which has been paid to it to the companies which supplied the services thus disputed?


title: Case F-66/12: Action brought on 27 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/28

         Action brought on 27 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-66/12)
   2012/C 258/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision determining the amount of transferable capital in respect of pension rights acquired prior to entry into the service and the calculation of the number of years of pensionable service recognised for the purposes of that transfer into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally,

                           —

                           annul the defendant’s decision of 30 November 2011 determining the amount of transferable capital in respect of pension rights acquired by the applicant at NATO, and the calculation of the number of years of pensionable service recognised for the purposes of that transfer into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union;

                           —

                           in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 28 March 2012 expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 23 January 2012;

               —

               in any event,

                           —

                           acknowledge the non-material damage suffered and order the defendant to pay a sum provisionally assessed at EUR 20 000;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay the costs.


7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 72/23
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Birri Fiorindo
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-4/98)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                                           (98/C 72/52)
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
                                                                    by Birri Fiorindo, represented by Claudio Mussato, of the
                                                                    Udine Bar, with an address for service at his Chambers at
                                                                    4 Via Dante, Udine.
Action brought on 5 January 1998 by D'Odorico Franco
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-3/98)
                          (98/C 72/51)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                                                                         30 July 1997,
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
An action against the Commission of the European                         the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998                   was paid,
by D'Odorico Franco, represented by Claudio Mussato, of
the Udine Bar, with an address for service at his Chambers
at 4 Via Dante, Udine.                                              Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     30 July 1997,                                                  relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
                                                                    Giulia v. Commission (1).
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
     was paid,
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Framalicco Maria
     Communities to pay the costs.                                  Cecilia against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-5/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (98/C 72/53)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            (Language of the case: Italian)
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.                                       Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
                                                                    by Framalicco Maria Cecilia, represented by Claudio
                                                                    Mussato, of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at
                                                                    4 Via Dante, Udine.


title: Case T-734/14: Action brought on 24 October 2014 — VTB Bank/Council

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/43

      Action brought on 24 October 2014 — VTB Bank/Council
      (Case T-734/14)
      (2015/C 016/67)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: VTB Bank OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The Applicant claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 (1), Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 (2), Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (4), in so far as they apply to the Applicant;

                  —

                  declare illegal/inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Article 5 of the Regulation 833/2014, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Article 1(5) of Regulation 960/2014.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for listing the Applicant in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (the ‘Contested Measures’). The Council is obliged to provide the specific reasons why a particular entity has been included in the restrictive measures in question. The Council failed to state any reasons for its decision to apply the Contested Measures to the Applicant, or alternatively has failed to provide sufficient/adequate reasons or even to notify the Applicant of its inclusion, and has accordingly not complied with this obligation.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that the criteria for listing in the Contested Measures were fulfilled with regard to the Applicant. It is not managed by the Russian State and does not have “an explicit mandate to promote competitiveness of the Russian economy, its diversification and encouragement of investment.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the Applicant’s rights of defence and effective judicial review. The Council’s failure to notify the Applicant of its inclusion in the Contested Measures, or to provide reasons for the Applicant’s inclusion, or any evidence in support, or an opportunity to make observations in response, breaches the Applicant’s rights of the defence, and its right to effective judicial protection by this Court.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation. In particular, the Applicant’s inclusion in the Contested Measures amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the Applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment and use of property guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its reputation.

                  5.

                  As regard the declaration of illegality, first plea in law, alleging that Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Article 5 of the Regulation 833/2014, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Article 1(5) of Regulation 960/2014 are unlawful because they are not necessary or proportionate to the objectives that the Contested Measures are apparently intended to achieve, namely imposing pressure on the Government of Russia to change its policies relating to Ukraine.

                  6.

                  As regards the declaration of illegality, second plea in law alleging that the Contested Measures breach obligations of the European Union in international law, including the European Union’s obligations under Article II(1), Article XVI and Article XVII of the GATS, and a number of provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation between the European Communities and the Russian Federation. Moreover, the Contested Measures have resulted in the Member States being in breach of their obligations under Friendship, Commerce and Navigation and similar treaties.

         (1)  OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13.

         (2)  OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 1.

         (3)  OJ L 271, 12.9.2014, p. 54.

         (4)  OJ L 271, 12.9.2014, p. 3.


15.5.1999               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 136/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                              Removal from the registrer of Case C-329/98 (1)
Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, by order
of that court of 14 January, 25 February and 11 March                                                (1999/C 136/26)
1999 in the case of Veneta Assicurazione SpA against
                 Ufficio del Registro di Padova
                                                                             By order of 12 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                          (Case C-102/99)                                    from the register of Case C-329/98: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                          (1999/C 136/23)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
ria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, (Regional Tax Court
— Sixth Chamber, Venice) of 14 January, 25 February and
11 March 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
22 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veneta
Assicurazione SpA against Ufficio del Registro di Padova on
the question whether or not Note I to Article 4, Part I, of                         Removal from the register of Case C-85/98 (1)
Presidential Decree No 131/86 is contrary to the provisions of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as subsequently amended.                                                   (1999/C 136/27)
                                                                             By order of 16 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-85/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ, English special edition, Series I 1969(II), p. 412.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-413/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/24)                                           Removal from the register of Case C-396/97 (1)
By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the First Chamber                                       (1999/C 136/28)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-413/97:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic                    By order of 23 February 1999 the President of the First
of Germany.                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                             has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/97:
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-429/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/25)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/29)
By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  By order of 24 February 1999 the President of the Court of
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission of the European Communi-                     from the register of Case C-429/98: Commission of the
ties.                                                                        European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                    (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.


title: Case T-407/07: Action brought on 8 November 2007 — CMB and Christof v Commission and EAR

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/22

         Action brought on 8 November 2007 — CMB and Christof v Commission and EAR
   (Case T-407/07)
   (2008/C 8/39)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: CMB Maschinenbau & Handels GmbH (Gratkorn, Austria) and J. Christof GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Petsche, N. Niejahr and Q. Azau, lawyers, and F. Young, Solicitor)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Agency for Reconstruction
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision;

               —

               order the EAR to produce certain documents;

               —

               order the EAR to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by the applicants in the amounts of EUR 26 862,17 and EUR 3 197 968,80 for costs and lost profit, plus compensatory interest from the date on which the damage materialised;

               —

               order the EAR to pay interest on the damages from the date of judgment;

               —

               order the EAR and the Commission to pay their own costs and the applicants' costs in connection with these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants contest the European Agency for Reconstruction's decision of 29 August 2007 confirming the rejection of the applicants' bid and the award of the contract to another tenderer relating to the tender notice EuropeAid/124192/D/SUP/YU (OJ 2006/S 233-248823) for the supply, delivery, installation, after-sales service and training in the use of supplies for treatment and transport of medical waste throughout the Republic of Serbia (excluding Kosovo). The applicants further request compensation for the alleged damages caused by the decision.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contracting authority violated the award criteria for the tender, as the offer of the successful tenderer did not meet the technical specifications.
   Furthermore, the applicants allege that the contracting authority violated the applicable procurement procedure, that it did not state reasons and that it breached the principle of sound administration.


title: Case C-44/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2016 by Dyson Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2015 in Case T-544/13: Dyson Ltd v European Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/18

         Appeal brought on 25 January 2016 by Dyson Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2015 in Case T-544/13: Dyson Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-44/16 P)
   (2016/C 145/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Dyson Ltd (represented by: E. Batchelor, M. Healy, solicitors, F. Carlin, barrister, A. Patsa, advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested judgment in its entirety;

               —

               Annul the contested Regulation (1) in its entirety; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay its own costs and Dyson’s costs in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Dyson submits the General Court erred in law:

               i.

               First, the General Court mischaracterised Dyson's plea as manifest error rather than lack of legal competence under Art.10(1) of Directive 2010/30/EU (2);

               ii.

               Second, the General Court misinterpreted the scope of the Commission's delegated power under Art. 10(1) of Directive 2010/30/EU;

               iii.

               Third, the General Court infringed Dyson's rights of defence as to facts on which Dyson had no opportunity to provide its views;

               iv.

               Fourth, the General Court distorted and/or disregarded relevant evidence;

               v.

               Fifth, the General Court infringed Art. 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by not stating reasons for: (i) characterising the applicable legal test as one of manifest error; (ii) concluding Dyson's data was ‘extremely speculative’; (iii) purporting to rely on an unspecified part of an unidentified ‘impact study’; and (iv) disregarding Dyson's reproducibility evidence; and

               vi.

               Sixth, the General Court misapplied the legal test for equal treatment.

         Dyson respectfully requests that the Court annul the contested judgment and grant the order sought before the General Court, annulling Commission Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 (‘Contested Regulation’) as it has sufficient information before it to rule on the substance of the issues raised at first instance.

      (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners OJ L 192, p. 1

      (2)  Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products OJ L 153, p. 1


title: Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-262/98)

text:
5.9.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 278/27
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Article 7 of the Directive. However, the Commission
                                                                   also points out that the national decision to adopt an
                                                                   integrated strategy to combat pollution rather than
Under Article 20 of Directive 78/686/EEC, Member States            evaluating the situation substance by substance makes it
which require their own nationals to complete a                    difficult to verify whether Article 7 is being complied
preparatory training period in order to become eligible for        with, in particular as regards the 99 priority substances, if
appointment as a dental practitioner of a social security          the information forwarded to the Commission is not set
scheme could, for a period of eight years following                out in an orderly and transparent or at least non-
notification of the Directive, impose a training period of a       contradictory fashion.
maximum of six months on nationals of other Member
States. That eight-year period expired on 28 July 1986.
However, under Article 17 of the Zulassungsordnung für             In any event, the Commission has reason to conclude that
Vertragszahnärzte (Rules on Admission for Appointed                the Portuguese Republic has not completed identification
Dental Practitioners) the German authorities require               of the substances existing in Portugal which appear on
applicants from other Member States to attend one or               the list of 99 substances and, in relation to those which
three-day courses, in which linguistic proficiency and             it has identified, it has not adopted genuine reduction
knowledge of German social security law are also tested.           programmes and has only partially set quality objectives.
                                                                   In that respect, the Commission considers that the few
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.                                     voluntary agreements with some industrial sectors are
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.                                    not binding and cannot in any event be regarded as
                                                                   programmes within the meaning of Article 7 of the
                                                                   Directive. But even if they were, they do not cover all the
                                                                   industrial sectors and still less do they reduce pollution
                                                                   deriving from various sources.
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the            In addition, as far as the plans for de-pollution of the
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic             River A Â gueda, Bacia do Guadiana and Bacia de Alcanena
                       (Case C-261/98)                             are concerned, although they may contribute to improving
                                                                   water quality, they do not constitute, from the point of
                        (98/C 278/48)                              view either of geographical cover or of content, timetabled
                                                                   programmes for the reduction of pollution from the 99
                                                                   priority substances, with clear quality objectives and
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought              emission standards.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,             (1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                   Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate
    to the Commission summaries of the programmes for                                     (Case C-262/98)
    the reduction of pollution incorporating quality
    objectives and the corresponding results in respect of                                 (98/C 278/49)
    the 99 priority substances mentioned in the first indent
    of List II in the Annex to Council Directive 76/464/
    EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
    dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    environment of the Community (1), the Portuguese               on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
    Article 7 of that Directive and the third paragraph of         Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
    Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                                  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                that the Court should:
The Commission recognises that the Portuguese                      Ð declare that, by failing to communicate the laws,
authorities have been making efforts to comply with                     regulations and administrative measures necessary in
 ---pagebreak--- C 278/28                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.9.98
     order to comply with Council Directive 93/65/EEC of                   financing for the sum of BEF 382 208 436 by way of
     19 July 1993 on the definition and use of compatible                  expenditure incurred for the advance payment of
     technical specifications for the procurement of                       export refunds;
     air-traffic management equipment and systems (1),
     alternatively by failing to take the measures necessary          2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     to comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has                       proceedings.
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                      those in Case C-242/97 (2).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      (1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
                                                                      (2) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 6.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit laid down by
Article 9 of the Directive expired on 20 July 1994.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
The Commission asserts, in the alternative, that the                  PremieÁre Instance de Charleroi by judgment of that court
Directive confers on nationals of the Member States the               of 2 July 1998 in the case of Tibor Balog v. ASBL Royal
right to respond to invitations to tender prepared in                                Charleroi Sporting Club (RCSC)
accordance with the standards laid down pursuant to
and in accordance with the Directive. For that reason,                                       (Case C-264/98)
internal memoranda circulated by State ministries or                                           (98/C 278/51)
administrative authorities do not constitute an adequate
transposition measure.
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
(1) OJ L 187, 27.7.1993, p. 52.                                       PremieÁre Instance (Court of First Instance), Charleroi, of
(2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.                             2 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      20 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tibor
                                                                      Balog v. ASBL Royal Charleroi Sporting Club on the
                                                                      following question:
                                                                      Is it compatible with Article 85 of the EC Treaty and/or
                                                                      with Article 53 of the Agreement on the European
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Kingdom                         Economic Area for a football club established in the
of Belgium against the Commission of the European                     territory of a Member State of the European Union to
                            Communities                               claim, on the basis of the rules and circulars of the
                          (Case C-263/98)                             national and international federations (URBSFA, UEFA,
                                                                      FIFA), payment of a transfer sum' on the occasion of the
                           (98/C 278/50)                              engagement of one of its former players, a professional
                                                                      footballer of non-Community nationality who has reached
                                                                      the end of his contract, by a new employer established in
An action against the Commission of the European                      the same Member State, in another Member State of the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                European Union or the European Economic Area, or in a
the European Communities on 17 July 1998 by the                       non-member country?
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, General
Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade
and Development Cooperation, and H. Gilliams, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des Girondins.
                                                                      References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera
                                                                      Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           31 March 1998 in the cases of Salvat Editores SA and
                                                                               Others and J. CompanÄ Calbuig and Others
                                                                                (Cases C-265/98 to C-272/98)
1. annul Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
                                                                                (98/C 278/52)
     1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
     Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994
     on the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far                European Communities by orders of Juzgado de Primera
     as it disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community          Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 35, Barcelona, of


title: Case F-100/06: Action brought on 31 August 2006 — Simon v Court of Justice and Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/65

         Action brought on 31 August 2006 — Simon v Court of Justice and Commission
   (Case F-100/06)
   (2006/C 294/129)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant: Balázs Simon (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: György Magyar, lawyer)

      Defendants: Court of Justice of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul: (i) the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Court of Justice of 23 February 2006; (ii) the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Commission of 3 March 2006; (iii) the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Commission of 30 May 2006; (iv) the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Court of Justice of 27 June 2006, in so far as those decisions deprive the applicant of the rights to which his appointment as a probationary official on 16 July 2004 entitles him, and thus of his length of service and grade, and of the rights to which his appointment as an established official on 16 April 2005, that is to say, his definitive appointment, entitles him;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   After having brought Case F-58/06 (1), the applicant now challenges both the decisions of the Court of Justice to accept his resignation offered in his statement of 28 October 2005 and the decisions of the Commission fixing his classification at grade A*5.
   In support of his action, the applicant puts forward two pleas, alleging, in the first, a breach of the principle prohibiting the withdrawal of rights guaranteed by the Staff Regulations and interference with acquired rights, and, in the second, misuse of powers and an interference with acquired rights.
   In his first plea, the applicant, inter alia, submits that, by his statement of 28 October 2005 he did not intend to leave the body of officials, but only to change his place of work and function. Thus, he did not forfeit his acquired rights.
   In his second plea, the applicant maintains, inter alia, that, even supposing that by his statement he had waived his status as an official, such waiver would be illegal on the ground that the defendants made it the de facto condition in order for him to be transferred from one institution to another. In addition, the applicant alleges that, in so far as he had been appointed an official at grade A*7 by the Court of Justice, he fulfils the conditions required in order to be classified in that grade, with the result that his classification by the Commission in grade A*5 constitutes a misuse of power that deprives him of his acquired rights.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 35.


title: Case T-88/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/59

         Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)
   (Case T-88/10)
   2010/C 113/91
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (Delft, The Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meteor Controls International Limited (Cookstown, Ireland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2009 in case R 529/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the proceedings before it.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GLÄNSA”, for goods in class 11

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “GLANZ”, for goods in classes 6, 9 and 11

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the trade mark applied for in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to make a correct global assessment and comparison of the trade marks concerned, thereby wrongly finding that these were similar and, as a result, that there was a likelihood of confusion between them.


title: Case T-573/12: Action brought on 28 December 2012 — Matrix Energetics International/OHIM (MATRIX ENERGETICS)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Action brought on 28 December 2012 — Matrix Energetics International/OHIM (MATRIX ENERGETICS)
   (Case T-573/12)
   2013/C 63/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Matrix Energetics International, Inc. (Lynnwood, United States) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of appeal of the Office Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2012 in Case R 56/2012-4;

               —

               Order the Office Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear the costs of the proceeding.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MATRIX ENERGETICS’ for services in class 41 — International registration No W 995 247

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused protection of the International Registration designating the European Union

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-98/16: Action brought on 4 March 2016 — Italy v Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/34

         Action brought on 4 March 2016 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-98/16)
   (2016/C 145/42)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision No C (2015) 9526 final of 23 December 2015, notified on the same date, on the State aid SA.39451 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Italy for BANCA TERCAS (Cassa di risparmio della provincia di Teramo S.p.A.);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the contested decision, the Commission declared that a contribution amounting to EUR 295,14 million paid to Banca Tercas by the Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi constitutes State aid awarded in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU which is incompatible with the internal market. That contribution is the result of three separate measures: a non-repayable contribution of EUR 265 million (measure 1), a guarantee for EUR 35 million (with an aid element which can be calculated as EUR 0,14 million) granted in order to cover the credit exposure of Banca Tercas towards an Italian group of undertakings (measure 2) and, finally, a further non-repayable contribution of EUR 30 million, to cover tax costs of the operation (measure 3).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts concerning the public nature of the resources to which the disputed measures relate.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this respect that the decision incorrectly classifies the resources used by the Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi as public resources, without taking into account, in particular, the principles established by the Court of Justice in the judgments of 15 July 2004 in Pearle and Others, C-345/02, and of 30 May 2013 in Doux Élevage, C-677/11.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts concerning the imputability of the contested measures to the State.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this regard that the decision is incorrect in so far as it considers the contested measures to be imputable to the State, without taking into account the fact that they derive from an autonomous decision of a private body, namely the Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, and that no public authority exercised any undue influence or pressure for the purposes of reaching that decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts concerning the granting of a selective advantage. Incorrect application of the MEIP (market-economy-investor principle) criterion.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this regard that the decision is incorrect in so far as it failed to consider that the contested measures also complied with the so-called MEIP criterion, since they appeared economically advantageous to the Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, compared with the alternative scenario, which would have resulted from the liquidation of Banca Tercas.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts in respect of the assessment of compatibility of the alleged State aid with the internal market.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission, finally, erred in taking the view that the disputed measures were incompatible with the internal market, even in the event that they should be classified as State aid.


title: Case T-158/05: Action brought on 22 April 2005 by Trek Bicycle Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/25

         Action brought on 22 April 2005 by Trek Bicycle Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-158/05)
   (2005/C 171/42)
   Language of the application: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 2005 by Trek Bicycle Corporation, Waterloo, Wisconsin (United States of America), represented by J. Kroher and A. Hettenkofer, lawyers.
   The other party before the Board of Appeal was AUDI AG, Ingolstadt (Germany).
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Decision R 587/2004-4);

               —

               set aside Decision No 1716/2004 of the Opposition Division of 26 May 2004 on Opposition No B 435828 in so far as the opposition concerning the goods ‘vehicles and parts therefor’ was rejected;

               —

               refuse registration of Community trade mark No 1910256 ‘ALLTREK’ concerning the goods ‘vehicles and parts therefor’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               AUDI AG.

               Community trade mark sought:

               The word mark ‘ALLTREK’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12 and 42 (Registration No 1910256).

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The German word mark ‘TREK’ for goods in Classes 6, 9, 11, 12 and 21 (No 2 092 896).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Partial rejection of the opposition (as regards Class 12).

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark. There is a likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks, since they are extremely similar and the older mark has special distinctive character.


C 113/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 11.4.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     Removal from the register of Case C-231/95 (1)
Tariefcommissie by order of that court of 24 February
1998 in the case of De Haan Beheer BV v. Inspecteur der                                           (98/C 113/24)
            Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Rotterdam
                           (Case C-61/98)
                            (98/C 113/23)
                                                                          By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                        of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case C-231/95 (Reference for
the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de PremieÁre
Tariefcommissie (Administrative Court for Customs and
                                                                          Instance, LieÁge): Criminal proceedings against Bent
Excise) of 24 February 1998, which was received at the
                                                                          Carlsen, civil party: Georges Vanhalle.
Court Registry on 2 March 1998, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of De Haan Beheer BV v. Inspecteur der
Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Rotterdam, on the following
                                                                          (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
question.
Is it to be assumed from rules of written or unwritten
Community customs law that customs authorities are
under an obligation such as that described in
paragraph 6.2 (1) in their relations with those liable to pay
customs duty and, if so, what are the legal consequences,
as regards assessment, entry in the accounts and collection
of the customs debt, if the authorities fail to comply with                     Removal from the register of Case C-277/97 (1)
that obligation?
                                                                                (98/C 113/25)
(1) The applicant, which makes it clear that it made the
    declarations in good faith, has, rightly in the Tariefcommissie's
    view, raised the question whether the customs authorities were
    not under a duty to warn a declarant in its position, within
    the period of approximately 10 days available in this case,           By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
    against possible fraudulent customers. Had it received such a         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
    warning, the applicant would have been able to take account           removal from the register of Case C-277/97: Commission
    of the inordinate risk involved and could ultimately have
    averted liability for a customs debt being incurred in its name
                                                                          of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
    in respect of the subsequent six declarations.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for annulment of the
                        of 17 February 1998                               Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant to the
                                                                          post of grade A 4/A 5 temporary staff member in the
in Case T-56/96: Alberto Maccaferri v. Commission of the                  Directorate-General for Enterprise Policy, Distributive
                    European Communities (1)                              Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives on the conclusion of
(Officials Ð Temporary staff Ð Recruitment procedure Ð                    competition 62T/XXIII/93 and, in so far as may be
Transfer of post Ð Absence of statement of reasons Ð                      necessary, for annulment of the Commission's decision to
         Misuse of powers Ð Legitimate expectations)                      transfer that post to another directorate-general and to
                                                                          replace it with a category B budgetary post Ð the Court
                            (98/C 113/26)                                 of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
                                                                          President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,
                 (Language of the case: French)                           Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
                                                                          which it:
In Case T-56/96: Alberto Maccaferri, a former member of
the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                     1. annuls the Commission's decision not to appoint the
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                     applicant to the post of grade A 4/A 5 temporary staff
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                           member in the Directorate-General for Enterprise
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v.                                 Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana                            on the conclusion of competition 62T/XXIII/93,