title: Case T-410/06: Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial v Council

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/40

         Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial v Council
   (Case T-410/06)
   (2007/C 42/70)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co. Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: I. MacVay, solicitor, R. Thompson, QC and K. Beal, barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to meet the applicant's costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present application, the applicant seeks annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of the contested regulation to the extent that it imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on its exports to the European Union.
   The applicant advances four pleas in law in support of its claims:

               —

               The applicant submits that the Commission's calculation of the profit margin to be used for the constructed value of the applicant's normal value is vitiated by a manifest error and/or infringes its rights of defence.

               —

               Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission allegedly breached the requirements of Article 3 of the Basic Regulation and/or made a manifest error of assessment in failing to take account of relevant information concerning the structure of the market, and in particular the important role played by independent intermediaries in the supply of products manufactured by the applicant.

               —

               According to the applicant, the Commission has further infringed Article 20 of the Basic Regulation and/or essential procedural requirements and/or its rights of defence in failing to give proper disclosure in respect of the radical amendment of the definitive measures proposed by the Commission between 7 July and 28 July 2006.

               —

               Finally, the applicant contends that the contested regulation is further vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in respect of the extent and duration of the injury relied on to justify a determination of material injury and the imposition of duties on the applicant.


title: Case T-164/02: Action brought on 24 May 2002 by Kaul GmbH against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
27.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 180/31
Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the
     Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                     —     Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
                                                                                4 March 2002 in Case R 782/2000-3 concerning the
                         (Case T-162/02)                                        opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the
                                                                                Community trade mark No 49106 CAPOL against the
                         (2002/C 180/53)                                        application for registration of the Community trade mark
                                                                                No 000195370 ‘ARCOL’;
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, established in
Alava (Spain), represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri.                    Applicant for the Com-         Atlantic Richfield Company (part
                                                                          munity trade mark:             of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The Community trade            Word mark ‘ARCOL’ for goods in
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the             mark concerned:                Classes 1, 17 and 20 (including
      OHIM of 28 February 2002;                                                                          chemical substances for pre-
                                                                                serving foodstuffs) — Application
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                                                   No 195370
                                                                          Proprietor of the right to     The applicant
                                                                          the trade mark or sign
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                          sition in the opposition
The Community trade             Figurative mark depicting a ‘rey          proceedings:
mark concerned:                 de espadas’ (king of spades) —
                                Registered        trade       mark        Trade mark or sign             Community trade mark ‘CAPOL’
                                No 0000089961 for goods                   asserted by way of oppo-       for Class 1 (chemical substances
                                within Class 16 (playing cards)           sition in the opposition       for preserving foodstuffs) —
                                                                          proceedings:                   Registered under No 49106
(See the information for Case T-160/02 Heraclio Fournier v
OHIM)                                                                     Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                          Appeal:
                                                                          Grounds of claim:              —    The applicant was not infor-
Action brought on 24 May 2002 by Kaul GmbH against                                                            med of the change of party
Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market                                                           submitting the application
              (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                                for registration of a Com-
                                                                                munity trade mark
                         (Case T-164/02)
                                                                                —    under Regulation No 40/
                                                                                94 (1), it is permissible to
                         (2002/C 180/54)                                                                      put forward new facts in the
                                                                                course of proceedings
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was                                        —    Error of assessment of the
                          drafted: German)                                                                    likelihood of confusion pur-
                                                                                suant to Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation No 40/94.
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    Community trade mark.
24 May 2002 by Kaul GmbH, whose registered office is in
Elmshorn (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger and
R. Kunze, lawyers.


C 94/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-79/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/33)                                                      (98/C 94/37)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-79/97: (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):          a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München):
FRUKO-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emme-               Happy Sports Michl OHG v. Finanzamt Landshut.
rich.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-99/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/96 ( )1
                                                                                (98/C 94/38)
                         (98/C 94/34)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-99/97: (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-300/96 (Reference for         a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):
a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches            Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-
Verwaltungsgericht): Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und            wesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH.
Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-135/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (1)                                       (98/C 94/39)
                         (98/C 94/35)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           removal from the register of Case C-135/97: (Reference
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht
removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (Reference for         Wien): Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-        Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand
sachsen): Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler.             Gesellschaft mbH.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/36)                                                      (98/C 94/40)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg):             a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): HDM
Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham-               Flugservice GesmbH. v. Hauptverband der österreichischen
burg, intervener: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                       Sozialversicherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                          (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Case F-158/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2013 — Marqués v Commission (Civil Service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expression of interest EPSO/CAST/02/2010 — Conditions of employment — Appropriate professional experience — Rejection of the application for employment)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/51

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2013 — Marqués v Commission
   (Case F-158/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Call for expression of interest EPSO/CAST/02/2010 - Conditions of employment - Appropriate professional experience - Rejection of the application for employment)
   2013/C 325/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Éric Marqués (Ennery, France) (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision rejecting the application for employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in function group III which was made by the Office for Infrastructures and Logistics in Luxembourg and compensation for the material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 6 March 2012 refusing to employ Mr Marqués as a member of the contract staff in function group III;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Marqués.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013, p. 30.


title: Case C-320/05 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2005 by Fred Olsen SA against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended composition) in Case T-17/02 between Fred Olsen SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/14

         Appeal brought on 22 August 2005 by Fred Olsen SA against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended composition) in Case T-17/02 between Fred Olsen SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-320/05 P)
   (2005/C 271/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2005 by the Second Chamber, (Extended Composition), of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in Case T-17/02, between Fred Olsen SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 August 2005 by Fred Olsen SA, represented by R. Marín Correa, lawyer.
   The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               (1)

               Annul the contested judgment for infringement of the appellant's right to adduce the evidence relevant to its defence, or

               (2)

               In the alternative, set aside the contested judgment and adopt a fresh judgment annulling the Commission Decision of 25 July 2001 (1) on procedure NN 48/2001 concerning State aid, in the terms indicated in the application submitted by Fred Olsen SA.

               (3)

               Make such other order as it may deem fit, in particular an order as to costs and the costs at first instance to be imposed on the Commission of the European Communities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The first plea concerns the infringement of the defendant's right to adduce evidence relevant to the defence, which is subsumed within the right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; it also raises a plea concerning the legally erroneous appraisal of the evidence actually adduced.
               That right was alleged to have been infringed by the refusal to allow various items of documentary evidence which were essential for substantiating the action for annulment; the defendant's essential pleas were not upheld precisely because they were not supported or evidenced. Likewise, The Court of First Instance is alleged to have distorted or disregarded the clear sense of evidence essential for underpinning the application for annulment.

               2.

               The second plea concerns the infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty on the ground that the statement of reasons on which the contested Decision was based was, in regard to essential aspects, inadequate. In particular, in relation to the essential question raised in the complaints which gave rise to the aforementioned decision concerning the lack of any contractual basis for the payments made to Transmediterránea in order to offset personnel restructuring costs.

               3.

               The third plea concerns the infringement of Article 88 EC and Article 19 of Regulation No 659/1999. It is alleged that the actual measures contained in the Commission Decision of 3 December 1997 adopted in relation to the contract for the provision of maritime services entered into between Transmediterránea and the Kingdom of Spain in 1978 entailed the abolition of the State aid scheme contained therein and precluded its continuance in relation to the Canary Isles lines.

               4.

               The fourth plea concerns the infringement of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with the infringement of Article 173 thereof, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance exceeded its competences in determining the application for review and confirming the validity of the contested decision of its own motion as an appellate court. A plea is also raised concerning the infringement of Article 263 of the Treaty.
               In fact, in the contested judgment the Court of First Instance confirmed the validity of certain compensation for the performance of public service obligations; in doing so, not only did it disregard the terms of Article 86(2) of the Treaty and the case-law interpreting that provision (since the requirements contained in that provision governing the validity of the payments were not fulfilled) but it also exceeded its competences in basing that determination on justificatory grounds differing from those contained in the Decision and which, as a result of the allegations and evidence put forward, have been shown to be fraught with uncertainty.

      (1)  OJ 2002, C 96, p. 4


title: Judgment of the Court of 2 June 2016 in Case E-24/15 — Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung (Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings)

text:
               2.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 66/31

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 2 June 2016
   in Case E-24/15
   Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung
   (Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings)
   (2017/C 66/10)
   In Case E-24/15, Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung — request to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 June 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 precludes the debtor institution from challenging the medical findings of the institution of the place of stay or residence in the administrative procedure.

               2.

               The binding effect mentioned in Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 applies in court proceedings following on from an administrative proceeding before the debtor institution in a situation such as that of the present case.


title: Case T-353/10: Action brought on 31 August 2010 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/55

      Action brought on 31 August 2010 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission
      (Case T-353/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/102)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  uphold the present action;

                  —

                  annul the contested debit note;

                  —

                  take account of the applicant’s submissions if it holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 5 November 2009 are to be refunded;

                  —

                  annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to third instalment which has not been paid;

                  —

                  set any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for five years;

                  —

                  hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision which is contained in debit note No 3241007362 of 22 July 2010 and relates to the applicant’s participation in DICOEMS research programme No 507760 and to implementation of the results of financial audit No 09-BA74-028.
      The applicant puts forward the following grounds in support of its pleas:

                  —

                  infringement of the general principle of law that an unfavourable measure must incorporate a statement of reasons in order for the legality of the reasoning to be reviewed, since the contested debit note does not state any reasons;

                  —

                  error in the assessment of the facts, since the defendant did not take account of the evidence and in particular the timesheets which the applicant submitted as an attachment to its memorandum of 5 November 2009;

                  —

                  error of law and defective reasoning, since the defendant did not take account of the applicant’s actual submissions and rejected them in a wrongful manner and without stating reasons;

                  —

                  infringement of the principle of good faith and of legitimate expectations, since the defendant wrongfully failed to pay the applicant the final instalment of the programme and nullified all its research work, five years after the programme’s closure.


title: Case T-383/13: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others (Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Seconded National expert for the EULEX Kosovo mission — Decisions of a Head of Mission on disciplinary sanctions)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/31

         Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others
   (Case T-383/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Seconded National expert for the EULEX Kosovo mission - Decisions of a Head of Mission on disciplinary sanctions))
   (2015/C 205/41)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonios Chatzianagnostou (Serres, Greece) (represented by: C. Makris, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and M. Bauer, acting as Agents) European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, A.-C. Simon and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: B. Borchardt, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Fouquet, lawyer)

      Re

   Action for annulment of decisions of 10 May 2013 in disciplinary cases Nos 02/2013 and 06/2013, signed by the Head of the EULEX Kosovo mission.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2)

               Mr Antonios Chatzianagnostou is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and Eulex Kosovo.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case F-11/13: Action brought on 4 February 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/29

         Action brought on 4 February 2013 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-11/13)
   2013/C 123/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant to a post at EEAS headquarters and to terminate his posting to an EU delegation.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 8 March 2012 to transfer the applicant, with effect from 1 September 2012, to a post at headquarters and to bring his posting to a premature end;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay an amount equivalent to the difference between his earnings from 1 September 2012, when he was repatriated to headquarters, and his former earnings, until 1 September 2013, the date on which he could have been transferred back to headquarters in the context of the system of rotation of the heads of delegation posts;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision to reject his complaint of 24 October 2012;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  8 December 2005  in Case C-280/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) Jyske Finans A/S v Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(c) — Exemptions — Exemption of supplies of goods excluded from the right to deduct — Resale of motor cars purchased second-hand by a leasing company — Article 26a — Special arrangements for sales of second-hand goods)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 8 December 2005
   in Case C-280/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) Jyske Finans A/S v Skatteministeriet (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(c) - Exemptions - Exemption of supplies of goods excluded from the right to deduct - Resale of motor cars purchased second-hand by a leasing company - Article 26a - Special arrangements for sales of second-hand goods)
   (2006/C 36/25)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-280/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 25 June 2004, received at the Court on 29 June 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Jyske Finans A/S v Skatteministeriet — the Court: (Third Chamber) composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The provisions of Articles 13B(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994 are to be construed as meaning that they do not preclude a national law which imposes value added tax on transactions by which a taxable person, after having used them for the purposes of its business, resells goods on the acquisition of which, by virtue of Article 17(6), value added tax did not become deductible, even where that acquisition, made from taxable persons who could not declare value added tax, did not, for that reason, give rise to a right to deduct.

               2.

               Article 26aA(e) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 94/5, is to be construed as meaning that an undertaking which, in the normal course of its business, resells cars which it had purchased second-hand with a view to using them for the purposes of its business of sale and leaseback and for which the resale is not, at the time of the purchase of the second-hand goods, the principal objective but only its secondary objective, ancillary to that of leasing, can be considered to be a ‘taxable dealer’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.9.2004.


title: Case T-505/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Hungary v European Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/47

         Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-505/15)
   (2015/C 381/57)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G.Koos and A. Pálfy, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 4076 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) insofar as it excludes from European Union financing EUR 6 3 24  349,33 relating to the cross compliance audit, and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant disputes the findings of the Commission.
   In that regard, the applicant states that the Commission complains that, in accordance with the fundamental principles applicable to the verification of aid, both the sanctions not imposed because of the inadequate or wholly absent verifications of cross compliance (the legal requirements of management and good agricultural and ecological conditions) and the sanctions provided for by the rules but deprived of their deterrent effect because they have not been applied or have been applied incorrectly must be regarded as fundamentally deficient verifications. Further, the Commission complains that, in a case of non-compliance considered to be ‘minor’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 73/2009/EC, the Hungarian authorities applied tolerance thresholds on the basis of which no sanctions were imposed but which did not take into account aspects relating to animal and human health, in breach of the provisions of the EU legislation.


title: Case C-131/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Employment Tribunal, Leeds, by order of thatcourt dated 9 March 2004, in the case of C. D.Robinson-Steele against R. D. Retail Services Ltd.

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/37

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment Tribunal, Leeds, by order of that court dated 9 March 2004, in the case of C. D. Robinson-Steele against R. D. Retail Services Ltd.
   (Case C-131/04)
   (2004/C 106/64)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Employment Tribunal, Leeds, dated 9 March 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 11 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of C. D. Robinson-Steele and R. D. Retail Services Ltd on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC (1) consistent with provisions of national law which allow pay for annual leave to be included in a worker's hourly remuneration and paid as part of remuneration for working time but not paid in respect of a period of leave actually taken by the worker?

               2.

               Does Article 7.2 preclude the national tribunal from giving credit to an employer for such payments when it seeks to give to the applicant an effective remedy according to powers contained in national regulations?

      (1)  of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18).


title: Case C-184/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Travail de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre, by judgment of that court of 7 May 1999 in the case of Rudy Grzelczyk against the Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve

text:
C 204/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
2. Is it compatible with free movement of capital for consent            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
     of the land transfer authority, which has constitutive effect,      Gerichtshof by order of 27 April 1999 in the case of Hugo
     to be required for the acquisition of building land?                  Boss Aktiengesellschaft v Trigavina in Storitve D.O.O.
3. What effect does the standstill clause in point 1(e) of                                       (Case C-183/99)
     Annex XII to the EEA Agreement have on new types of
     situations requiring consent under land transfer law created
                                                                                (1999/C 204/58)
     after the signature of the EEA Agreement on 2 May 1992?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 27 April 1999 from the
                                                                         Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 18 May 1999, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo Boss Aktiengesellschaft
                                                                         v Trigavina in Storitve D.O.O. on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Meriem                Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
              Addou v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                           down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
                                                                         export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
                                                                         counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
                         (Case C-180/99)                                 Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
                                                                         situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
                                                                         the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
                         (1999/C 204/57)                                 the European Community, temporarily detained by the
                                                                         customs authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
                                                                         regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from                    its registered office in a Member State of the European
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was                Community?
received at the Court Registry on 17 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Meriem Addou v Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
     to refugees and to members of their families who are                Travail de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre,
     nationals of a non-member country if such persons have              by judgment of that court of 7 May 1999 in the case of
     no right of free movement under the Treaty of 25 March              Rudy Grzelczyk against the Centre Public d’Aide Sociale
     1957 establishing the European Community, as amended                                d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve
     by the Treaty of 7 February 1992 on European Union?
                                                                                (Case C-184/99)
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does
     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply in the case where
     a refugee working as an employed person and the members                                     (1999/C 204/59)
     of his family have travelled directly to a Member State
     from a non-member country and have not moved within                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the Community?                                                      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Travail
                                                                         de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre, of 7 May
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative: Is a               1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 May 1999, for a
     family benefit such as child-raising allowance under the            preliminary ruling in the case of Rudy Grzelczyk against the
     Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz (German Federal Law on                   Centre Public d’Aide Sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve on
     Child-Raising Allowance) also payable to the spouse of              the following questions:
     such an employed person who is likewise not a national of
     a Member State and who is herself neither an employed               1. Is it contrary to Community law — more particularly, the
     person nor a recognised refugee?                                        principles of European citizenship and of non-
                                                                             discrimination enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty
                                                                             established in the European Community — for entitlement
(1) JO L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),       to a social benefit under a non-contributory scheme, such
    p. 416.                                                                  as that introduced by the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974
                                                                             on the minimum means of subsistence, to be conferred
                                                                             only on nationals of the Member States to whom Regu-
                                                                             lation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 (1) applies
                                                                             and not on all citizens of the Union?
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/31
2. In the alternative, must Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty and        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
     Directive 96/93 of 29 October 1993 on the right of                by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket
     residence for students (2) be interpreted as permitting                                            vX
     exclusion of a student whose right of residence has
     been acknowledged from entitlement to benefits under a                                     (Case C-186/99)
     non-contributory social security benefit system such as the
     minimum means of subsistence, payable by the host                                          (1999/C 204/61)
     country and, if so, is that exclusion general and definitive
     in nature?                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
                                                                       Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a
(1) Regulation of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X on the
    movement for workers within the Community, OJ, English Special     following question:
    Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                         Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
 2
( ) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                              Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on
                                                                       dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
                                                                       public limited company if the shares do not constitute
                                                                       current assets and the total number of votes attached to the
                                                                       undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end
                                                                       of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25% of the
                                                                       number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing
                                                                       undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt
                                                                       from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a
                                                                       Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten              or more of the share capital of the distributing company and
by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket              is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary
                             v X, Y and Z                              directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in
                                                                       particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and
                                                                       58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
                           (Case C-185/99)                             system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not
                                                                       apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled
                                                                       in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-
                           (1999/C 204/60)                             ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment
preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X, Y and Z
                                                                       of that court of 28 April 1999, in the case of Fazenda
on the following question:
                                                                            Pública and Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa, Lda
                                                                                (Case C-187/99)
Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on                                            (1999/C 204/62)
dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
public limited company if the shares do not constitute                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
current assets and the total number of votes attached to the           European Communities by a judgment of the Second Chamber
undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end        of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-
of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25 % of the                 trative Court) of 28 April 1999, which was received at the
number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing         Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt           the case of Fazenda Pública v Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa,
from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a              Lda., on the following questions:
Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %            1. Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (1)
or more of the share capital of the distributing company and                of 16 July 1985 concerned with the conditions (obli-
is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary                    gations, rules) laid clown in the document granting the
directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in               beneficiary of the arrangements authorisation for the use
particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and               (functioning) thereof?
58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not              2. Or, on the contrary, is it concerned with the conditions,
apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled                 requirements or bases for the issue of the inward processing
in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-                authorisation?
ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?                3. Once the rate of yield has been fixed by the customs
                                                                            authority, may the latter unilaterally alter that rate on the
                                                                            ground that the holder of the authorisation, when making
                                                                            use of the arrangements, has in fact obtained a higher rate
                                                                            of yield than that initially envisaged and approved?


title: Case T-2/17: Action brought on 3 January 2017 — J.M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/37

         Action brought on 3 January 2017 — J.M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI)
   (Case T-2/17)
   (2017/C 063/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alberto Masi (Milan, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASSI’ — EU trade mark No 414 086

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 (rectified by decision of 3 November 2016) in Case R 793/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject the application for a declaration of invalidity filed by Mr. Alberto Masi against EUTM Registration No. 414086 ‘MASSI’ in class 12;

               —

               order EUIPO, and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO in case it takes part in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 56(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (res judicata);

               —

               Lack of application of Article 53(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No. 207/2009.


title: Case C-538/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2010 — Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet v État belge — SPF Finances

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2010 — Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet v État belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-538/10)
   2011/C 38/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance, Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet

      Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances

      Question referred

   Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the [Treaty on European Union, as amended by the] Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously contained in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude a national law, such as that of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the [Constitutional Court], (1) from requiring prior recourse to the Constitutional Court by a national court which finds that a taxpaying citizen is deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated into Community law, by another national law, namely Article 2 of the Law of 24 July 2008, without that national court being able immediately to ensure the direct applicability of Community law to the dispute before it or being able to scrutinise compliance with that convention when the Constitutional Court has recognised the compatibility of the national law with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the [Belgian] Constitution?

      (1)  Moniteur belge, 31 July 2009, p. 51617.


title: Case C-573/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 6 December 2012 — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 6 December 2012 — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten
   (Case C-573/12)
   2013/C 38/23
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ålands Vindkraft AB

      Defendant: Energimyndigheten

      Questions referred

               1.

               The Swedish electricity certificate system is a national support scheme which requires electricity suppliers and certain electricity users in the Member State to purchase an electricity certificate, corresponding to a certain share of their sales or use, without there being a specific requirement also to purchase electricity from the same source. The electricity certificate is issued by the Swedish State and is proof that a certain amount of renewable electricity has been produced. The producers of electricity obtained from renewable sources receive, by the sale of the electricity certificate, extra revenue as an additional income from its production of electricity. Are Article (2(k)) and Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that they permit a Member State to apply a national support scheme as above, in which only producers situated in the territory of that country can participate and which has the result that those producers have an economic advantage over producers who cannot be issued with an electricity certificate?

               2.

               Can a system such as that described in question 1 — in the light of Article 34 (TFEU) — be regarded as constituting a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is affirmative, can such a system be compatible with Article 34 (TFEU) as regards the objective of promoting the production of electricity from renewable energy sources?

               4.

               How is the consideration of the above questions affected by the fact that the restriction of the support scheme to include only national producers is not expressly governed in national law?

      (1)  OJ L 140, p. 16.


title: Case C-6/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v Fridolin Santer (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 — Air carriers and aircraft operators — Insurance — Requirements — Definitions of ‘passenger’ and ‘member of the crew’ — Helicopter — Carriage of an expert in the blasting of avalanches using explosives — Injury suffered during a work flight — Compensation)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/18

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v Fridolin Santer
   (Case C-6/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 - Air carriers and aircraft operators - Insurance - Requirements - Definitions of ‘passenger’ and ‘member of the crew’ - Helicopter - Carriage of an expert in the blasting of avalanches using explosives - Injury suffered during a work flight - Compensation))
   (2015/C 138/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG

      Defendant: Fridolin Santer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators must be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, who is carried on the basis of a contract between that air carrier and the occupant’s employer in order to perform a specific task, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is a ‘passenger’ within the meaning of that provision;

               2.

               Article 17 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 on the basis of Article 300(2) EC, approved on behalf of the EC by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who comes within the definition of ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Regulation No 785/2004, also comes within the definition of ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Article 17 of that convention, once that person has been carried on the basis of a ‘contract of carriage’ within the meaning of Article 3 of that convention.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case T-441/08: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2010 — ICO Services v Parliament and Council (Actions for annulment — Decision No 626/2008/EC — Common framework for the selection and authorisation of operators of systems providing mobile satellite services — Absence of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/18

         Order of the General Court of 21 May 2010 — ICO Services v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-441/08) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Common framework for the selection and authorisation of operators of systems providing mobile satellite services - Absence of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 195/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ICO Services Ltd (Slough, Berkshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Tupper, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and R. Kaškina, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Kimberley and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and A. Nijenhuis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               ICO Services Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Action brought on 21 August 1997 by Stork Amsterdam BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-241/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 357/29
— at the same time, order the defendant to publish a                  Instance of the European Communities on 21 August
     mandatory written correction regarding the good                  1997 by Stork Amsterdam BV, established in Amsterdam
     name and reputation of the first applicant by means of           ( Netherlands ), represented by A. J. Braakman, of the
     a circular letter to be sent to all responsible persons          Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     concerned within PHARE management units and the                  at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue Goethe.
     Commission in east and central Europe, setting out the
     result of the judgment to be delivered,
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
— at the same time, order the defendant to pay all the
     costs .                                                          — declare Stork's application admissible, at the same
                                                                          time acknowledging its entitlement to amplify and
                                                                          clarify the contents thereof,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1997,
The first applicant is a company engaged in carrying out
assignments in the context of the European Commission's
PHARE/TACIS programme . The second applicant is the                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
manager of the said company.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
On account of an alleged non-payment, the applicant
company was placed on the black list by a responsible
member of the Commission's staff. As a result, its income             The applicant contests the Commission's decision ( IV/F-1/
was reduced to zero. It was not until a year later that the           33.302 ) relating to its complaint against Serac SA
Commission       admitted     its mistake  and    that  all EU        concerning infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC
delegations were informed that the applicant was no                   Treaty.
longer to be excluded. However, it very soon became
apparent that the rectification made by the Commission
was no more than a purely formal concession which was                 Stork and Serac each construct a machine which links up
not taken into account on a commercial level by the                   with the other party's machine to form a complete
different EU delegations. In fact, the Commission                     production line. By agreement between them, they have
continues to base its position on the alleged financial               undertaken not to develop or sell any machines which
unreliability of the applicant, which has never again been            may compete with the other party's machine. They have
officially invited to apply for selection for a PHARE                 further undertaken not to sell their own machine without
project.                                                              that of the other party.
The applicants claim compensation pursuant to the second              Upon being confronted, in 1989, with the anti-competitive
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, concerning                 effects of that agreement, the applicant informed Serac
non-contractual liability.                                            that the agreement in question was contrary to the rules in
                                                                      the EC Treaty prohibiting restraints of trade, and that it
                                                                      was thus no longer bound by that agreement. At the same
They further complain of breaches of the principle of                 time, the applicant submitted a complaint to the
proportionality, of the right to a fair hearing, of the duty          Commission. In 1990 Serac notified the agreement to the
to act with due care, of the principle that due weight is to          Commission .
be given to matters and of the principle of the protection
of legitimate expectations.
                                                                      In its response, the Commission suggested to the parties
                                                                      that the anti-competitive clauses be deleted, alternatively
                                                                      that the parties apply to the national courts.
                                                                      In 1996 the Commission re-opened the procedure, and in
Action brought on 21 August 1997 by Stork Amsterdam                   1997 it adopted the contested decision and rejected
BV against the Commission of the European Communities                 Stork 's claim .
                        ( Case T-241 /97 )
                          ( 97/C 357/56 )                             By its application, the applicant contests the Commission's
                                                                      finding that the agreement contributes to improving
                                                                      production ( Article- 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty) and, further,
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        that it has only insignificant economic effects on the
                                                                      relevant market .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-72/15: Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Hippler v Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/57

         Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Hippler v Commission

   (Case T-72/15)
   (2015/C 138/74)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Eberhard Hippler (Dorsten, Germany) (represented by M. Richter Rechtsanwältin)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               prohibit the defendant, on pain of a fine to be fixed by the General Court for each infringement, from making the transport maps of ‘Bochum’, ‘Dortmund’, ‘Düsseldorf/Meerbusch’, ‘Duisburg’ and ‘Essen’ available to the public without the permission of the applicant, as has been done in the case of:
               http://dma.jrc.it/idas/lightrail/Dortmund.pdf
               http://dma.jrc.it/idas/lightrail/Bochum.pdf
               http://dma.jrc.it/idas/lightrail/Essen.pdf
               http://dma.jrc.it/idas/lightrail/Duesseldorf.pdf
               http://dma.jrc.it/idas/lightrail/Duisburg.pdf

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant in the amount of EUR 10  100;

               —

               order the defendant to reimburse the applicant the pre-trial legal costs in the amount of EUR 2  743,43;

               —

               to pay the costs of the proceedings, including legal fees.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) and also an infringement of Paragraphs 15 and 19a in conjunction with Paragraph 97(2) of the German Law on copyright (Urheberrechtsgesetz) (2).
   The applicant claims that the disputed transport maps are protected by copyright as academic or technical works. The applicant has not at any time consented to any form of use by the defendant and in particular has not granted any rights of use. Nor has the defendant been lawfully granted any rights of use from a third party. By using the maps the defendant has made them available to the public or has communicated the maps to the public.
   In addition, the applicant claims that, in order to ascertain the resulting economic loss, a calculation must be made on analogy with that applied to licences. The applicant has a right to payment for an appropriate licence. Both on the German market and as recognised by the German courts, licences are ordinarily and appropriately granted in the amount of EUR 2  200 per map. As a result, the damages amount to EUR 10  100.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the defendant has caused it non-economic consequential loss in breach of its exclusive copyright and should therefore be ordered to compensate that loss and prohibited from continuing the acts of use at issue.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the applicant’s lawyer was justified in sending the defendant a letter before action on the applicants behalf and the defendant must accordingly reimburse the applicant those resulting, necessary lawyer’s fees in the amount of EUR 2  743,43.

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167 of 22/06/2001).

      (2)  Law on copyright (Urheberrechtsgesetz) of 9 September 1965 (BGBl. I, p. 1273), as last amended by Article 1 of the Law of 5 December 2014 (BGBl. I p. 1974).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno, by order of that court of 17 August 1996 in the case of Dilexport S.r.l. v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-343/96)

text:
 No C 354/22              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
 — Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty: the                       Security Tribunal, Bouches du Rhone] of 1 March 1996 ,
       infringement of Article 10 ( 6 ) of Directive 93/37/EEC            received at the Court Registry on 15 October 1996, for a
       amounts at the same time to an infringement of                     preliminary ruling in the case ofJ. Farias v. Caisse Regionale
       Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The same is true of the               d'Assurance Maladie du Sud-Est [South-East Regional
       preference for Lower Austrian materials and/or                     Health Insurance Fund] on the following question:
       undertakings contained in point 2.10 of the AAVB
       where the tenders involved are of equal value to other             Can a Portuguese national residing in Portugal who reached
       tenders .                                                          the age of 60 on 17 May 1992, and did not receive , in
                                                                          addition to his invalidity pension, supplementary allowance
— Infringement of Directive 88/665/EEC ( directive on                     from the Fonds National de Solidarite [National Solidarity
       review procedures ): contrary to Articles 1 and 2 ( 1 ) ( h )      Fund] solely because he was resident outside France, claim
       of the Directive, point 2.5 of the AAVB excludes ab initio         under Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1247/92 ( ] ) that his
       and unconditionally all claims which might arise on the            entitlement was acquired before 1 June 1992 , the date of
       part of contractors in connection with an award                    entry into force of that regulation ?
       procedure .
                                                                          ( 1 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 1 .
 ( ] ) OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 54.
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma by              Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno,
order of that court of 2 October 1996 in the case of 1 .                 by order of that court of 17 August 1996 in the case of
CO.NA.TA. — Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop a                     Dilexport S.r.l. v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
r.l. and 2 . Agrindustria Sri against AIMA — Azienda di                                                    Stato
           Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato Agricolo                                             Case C-343/96
                 ( Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96 )                                                      ( 96/C 354/44
                               ( 96/C 354/42 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Pretura
European Communities by orders of the Pretura di Roma                    Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno
[Magistrates Court, Rome] of 2 October 1996 , received at                 [District Magistrate 's Court, Bolzano, Vipiteno Division] of
the Court Registry on 8 October 1996 , for a preliminary                  17 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
ruling in the case of 1 . CO.NA.TA. — Consorzio Nazionale                on 30 September 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Tabacchi Soc . Coop a r.l . and 2 . Agrindustria Sri against             Dilexport Sri . v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
AIMA — Aziende di Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato                   on the following questions :
Agricolo [State Intervention Agency] on the question of the
validity of Article 5 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( ! ) of           1 . Must Community law be interpreted as precluding the
17 December 1993 in connection with the principle of the                        adoption by a Member State of a provision such as
non-retroactivity of Community legislation since it cannot                      Article 29 of Italian Law No 428 of 29 December 1990
be justified either by the previous regulations or by an                        which makes the repayment of charges levied in breach
overriding public interest that warrants the sacrifice of                       of Community law subject to time-limits for
rights acquired on the basis of previous legislation, and                       prescription or lapse and to conditions as to proof which
entails an unforeseeable modification to the detriment of                       are different from and more restrictive than those laid
subjective rights, thereby undermining the legitimate                           down in the general rules of civil law ? In particular, with
expectations of the addressees of' the measure in                               regard to the principle that the procedural conditions for
question .                                                                      exercising the right to reimbursement established by
                                                                                national law 'may not be less favourable than those
(!) OJ No L 317, 18 . 12 . 1993 , p . 30 .                                      relating to similar actions of a domestic nature', what is
                                                                                to be understood by the expression ' similar actions of a
                                                                                domestic nature '?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal des                   2 . Do the fundamental principles of the Community order
Affaires de Sécurité Sociale des Bouches du Rhône by                            preclude the introduction by a Member State — in a
judgment of that Tribunal of 1 March 1996 in the case of J.                     limited manner and with reference only to a specific
Farias against Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du                          sphere consisting of a homogenous category of fiscal
                                   Sud-Est                                      levies made up in particular of charges linked to the
                                                                                Community order — of special derogating provisions to
                            ( Case C-339/96 )                                   restrict and limit the right to recovery of sums unduly
                              ( 96/C 354/43 )                                   paid, thus derogating from the general conditions for
                                                                                recovery of sums unduly paid laid down in Article 2033
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of the Civil Code ? In particular, may the principle of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal des                            non-discrimination be understood in a restrictive sense,
Affaires de Securite Sociale des Bouches du Rhone [Social                       and may it thus be considered that a provision of a
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/23
     Member State such as the second paragraph of                         law and, in particular, with the Court's findings as to
     Article 29 of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990                         unacceptable requirements of proof in Case 199/82 ( San
     complies with that principle, simply because the                     Giorgio ), cited above ? In particular, are the
     conditions laid down therein for reimbursement of fiscal             interpretation and application of Article 29 compatible
     charges linked to Community law, although restrictive                with Community law, on the basis of the assumption
     in comparison with the general rules of ordinary law, are            that ' it is a well-known fact that consumer taxes are
     however less onerous in comparison with the special                  passed on' presumptive evidence is deemed to be
     conditions for reimbursement laid down in the third                  sufficient proof of passing on and therefore for the claim
     paragraph of Article 29 ?                                            for reimbursement to be dismissed ?
3 . Do the abovementioned fundamental principles of the             5 . In consequence, is it compatible with Community law
     Community order preclude the adoption by a Member                    for the national court or its expert witness to establish
     State — after numerous judgments of the Court                        that charges have been passed on , relying on those mere
     declaring various charges relating to customs duties on              presumptions, which are claimed to be evidence freely
     imports, manufacturing taxes, consumer taxes, sugar                  assessed by the court, thus systematically excluding
     premium and state taxes to be incompatible with                      applications for reimbursement, as is happening in
     Community law — of a procedural provision such as                    practice, with the result that the debtor
     Article 29 of Law No 428 , which specifically reduces the            Amministrazione never acknowledges that it has to
     possibilities of bringing proceedings for recovery of                make repayment ?
     charges which were wrongly levied in breach of
     Community law ?                                                6 . May a rule such as that laid down in the fourth and
                                                                          eighth paragraphs of Article 29 , establishing procedural
4 . Is such a law as that — supposedly introduced in order                formalities ( for example, the requirement to notify
     to make national law comply with the precepts of the                 particular departments of the debtor authority ) which
     Court of Justice — which was passed three and a half                 were never contemplated in previous cases of
     years late following the judgments of the Court in                   reimbursement considered under the relevant general
     question, thus further unjustly enriching the State                  rules, be introduced and may it be interpreted with
     responsible for the delay, compatible with Community                 retrospective effect ?
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Directorate E ( East and Southern Africa ) of
                      of 16 October 1996                            Directorate-General VIII ( Development ), of the decision of
                                                                    the Commission classifying that position as a grade A 5/A 4
in Case T-36/94 : Alberto Capitanio v. Commission of the            post, of the decision to annul the vacancy notice for that post
                   European Communities C )                         in order to allow the reinstatement of an official who had
(Officials — Reinstatement — Determination of the level of          taken leave on personal grounds, and of all subsequent
         a post — Act adversely affecting an official)              and/or connected decisions adopted by the Commission in
                         ( 96/C 354/45 )                            consequence of the aforementioned decisions , in particular
                                                                    the decision rejecting the applicant's application for the post
                                                                    and the decision appointing Mr G. to that post — the Court
                                                                    of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K.
                                                                    Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J.
                 (Language of the case: French)                     Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                    given a judgment on 16 October 1996 , in which it:
In Case T-36/94 : Alberto Capitanio, an official of the             1 . dismisses the application;
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique
Leclercq, Greta-Fran^oise Parmentier and Ariane Tornel, of          2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                 f 1 ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission concerning the drawing-up and
publication of vacancy notice COM/022/93 for the post of
Head of Unit 4 (Technical group on infrastructure ) of


title: Case T-90/12: Action brought on 27 February 2012 — Elegant Target Development and Others v Council

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/32

         Action brought on 27 February 2012 — Elegant Target Development and Others v Council
   (Case T-90/12)
   2012/C 118/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Elegant Target Development Ltd (Hong Kong, China); Eternal Expert Ltd (Hong Kong); Giant King Ltd (Hong Kong); Golden Charter Development Ltd (Hong Kong); Golden Summit Investments Ltd (Hong Kong); Golden Wagon Development Ltd (Hong Kong); Grand Trinity Ltd (Hong Kong); Great Equity Investments Ltd (Hong Kong); Great Prospect International Ltd (Hong Kong); Harvest Supreme Ltd (Hong Kong); Key Charter Development Ltd (Hong Kong); King Prosper Investments Ltd (Hong Kong); Master Supreme International Ltd (Hong Kong); Metro Supreme International Ltd (Hong Kong); Modern Elegant Development Ltd (Hong Kong); Prosper Metro Investments Ltd (Hong Kong); Silver Universe International Ltd (Hong Kong); and Sparkle Brilliant Development Ltd (Hong Kong) (represented by: F. Randolph, M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2), in so far as the names of the applicants were added to the list of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for the inclusion of the names of the applicants in the list of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicants and/or included the applicants without an adequate legal basis for doing so.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)


title: Case F-132/07: Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Strack v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/44

         Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-132/07)
   (2008/C 107/77)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 23 July 2007 together with the implied decisions of 9 August 2007 and 11 September 2007 supplementary thereto and the decision of 9 November 2007 in so far as they reject the applicant's requests of 9 April 2007, 11 May 2007 and 11 October 2007 for authorisation to (i) publish documents (in the light of all legal considerations, in particular Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 24 of the Staff Regulations and any copyright and data protection provisions) and (ii) report (ex-)Commissioners and Commission officials to the prosecuting authorities; and damages in the sum of at least EUR 10 000.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 23 July 2007 together with the implied decisions of 9 August 2007 and 11 September 2007 supplementary thereto and the decision of 9 November 2007 in so far as they reject the applicant's requests of 9 April 2007, 11 May 2007 and 11 October 2007 for authorisation to (i) publish documents (in the light of all legal considerations, in particular Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 24 of the Staff Regulations and any copyright and data protection provisions) and (ii) report (ex-)Commissioners and Commission officials to the prosecuting authorities;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the sum of at least EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage and damage to health caused to the applicant by the decisions which are to be annulled;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-97/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia lodged on 20 February 2007 — Rosa Méndez López v Instituto Nacional de Empleo (INEM); Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia lodged on 20 February 2007 — Rosa Méndez López v Instituto Nacional de Empleo (INEM); Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
   (Case C-97/07)
   (2007/C 95/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rosa Méndez López

      Defendants: Instituto Nacional de Empleo (INEM); Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
   Question referred
   Should one interpret the expression ‘shall receive benefits in accordance with the legislation of that State as if he had last been employed there ’contained in Article 71 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, be interpreted as meaning that the requirement set out within Article 215.1 of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social of ‘having exhausted entitlement to contributory unemployment benefit ’for the purposes of entitlement to Spanish benefits of non-contributory unemployment allowances, is be understood to have been fulfilled if a German contributory unemployment benefit has been exhausted, even if the recipient has never paid contributions in Spain?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 149, p 2.


title: Case C-538/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(3) — Special areas of conservation — Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a protected site — Exemption from assessment of plans or projects which are subject to a declaratory scheme — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-538/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(3) - Special areas of conservation - Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a protected site - Exemption from assessment of plans or projects which are subject to a declaratory scheme - Incorrect transposition)
   2011/C 211/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Marghelis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of the provisions of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Obligatory environmental impact assessment where a project or a plan has an effect on a ‘Natura 2000’ site

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not requiring an appropriate environmental impact assessment to be undertaken for certain activities, subject to a declaratory scheme, where those activities are likely to have an effect on a Natura 2000 site, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-304/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (caldea) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community figurative mark caldea — Earlier international word mark BALEA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (caldea)
   (Case T-304/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark caldea - Earlier international word mark BALEA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 347/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and P. Hiller, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Semtee (Escaldes Engornay, Andorra) (represented by: É. Guissart, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 899/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Semtee.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in addition to bearing its own costs;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the intervention of Semtee.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.