title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München by decision of that court of 14 December 1995 in the case of Bioforce GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion München (Case C-405/95)

text:
No C 46/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     17 . 2 . 96
preliminary ruling in the case of B. R. D. ( Bureau RIK                Action brought on 27 December 1995 by Italian Republic
DECAN-Business Research & Development ) NV v. Belgian                      against Commission of the European Communities
State on the following questions :                                                            ( Case C-406/95 )
1 . Must Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive                                             ( 96/C 46/ 18 )
    ( 77/388/EEC ) ( J ) be interpreted as permitting a Member
    State not to refund a VAT credit from a given tax period           An action against the Commission of the European
    and not to carry it forward to a following period, but to          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    retain it on the ground that, and for so long as , it has a        European Communities on 27 December 1 995 by the Italian
    claim against the taxpayer in question relating to a               Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza, acting
    previous tax period, if that claim is disputed by the              as Agent, assisted by Ivo M. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato,
    taxpayer and thus does not yet constitute a definitive             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
    legal title, where the Member State has not received any           Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
    authorization under Article 27 of the Sixth VAT
    Directive ?                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must                 — annul the Commission 's decision of 4 October 1995
    Article 18 (4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive, in conjunction             concerning the conditions imposed on the second
    with the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as               operator of GSM radiotelephony services in Italy ('),
    permitting the Member State to provide that the
    necessity or urgency of the retention may not be                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    contested in any way, and that the retention may not be
    replaced in any way by a guarantee or annulled, so long            Pleas in law and main arguments
    as the disputed VAT claim has not been the
    subject-matter of a final judicial decision ?                      1 . In order to abolish the alleged disadvantage suffered by
                                                                           the second operator, Italy is obliged under the contested
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .                                    decision to require that 'Telecom Italia Mobile make an
                                                                           identical payment' or to adopt, after receiving the
                                                                           agreement of the Commission, 'corrective measures
                                                                           equivalent in economic terms to the payment made by
                                                                           the second operator'.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                  However, in the steps taken prior to the adoption of the
Munchen by decision of that court of 14 December 1995 in                   contested decision, the possibility of requiring that
the case of Bioforce GmbH v.                Oberfinanzdirektion            Telecom Italia Mobile make an identical payment —
                               Miinchen                                    considered by the Commission to be the most
                                                                           reasonable course of action — was never discussed . Such
                         ( Case C-405/95 )                                 a measure was never envisaged at that stage and the
                            ( 96/C 46/17)                                  Italian Government had no opportunity to express its
                                                                           views on the subject. That fact alone is sufficient to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     support the view that Italy's right to a fair hearing was
European Communities by a decision of the Finanzgericht                    infringed, but also in the case of the equivalent
                                                                           corrective    measures     referred   to  in  the    second
Miinchen ( Financial Court, Munich ) of 14 December 1995 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 27 December                    subparagraph of Article 1 of the contested decision, the
1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bioforce GmbH              discussions were incomplete and did not ensure the right
v. Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen on the following                           to a fair hearing.
questions :
                                                                       2 . The contested decision is predicated on the assumption
1 . Is   the    Common         Customs    Tariff  —    Combined            that the Italian Government 'has imposed an initial
    Nomenclature 1 994 — to be interpreted as meaning that                 payment for the grant of a second concession' in relation
                                                                           to GSM radiotelephony .
    products such as Echinacea Drops ( extract of echinacea
    purpurea e herba and e radice in 56,1 % alcohol by                     That assumption is incorrect. The Italian Government
    weight, for protection against colds and influenza and                 has not exacted any initial payment from tenderers
    for strengthening resistance to colds ) are to be classified           competing for the grant of a second GSM concession.
    under heading 3004 — Medicaments consisting of                         Accordingly, a national measure for the purposes of
    unmixed products for therapeutic or prophylactic uses,                 Article 90 ( 1 ) does not exist in the situation in
    put up . . . for retail sale ?                                         question.
2 . If not, is the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted             3 . The contested decision is unlawful and should therefore
    as meaning that products such as those referred to in                   be annulled, since it is based on the speculation that the
     Question 1 are to be classified as 'other' spirituous                  first operator will abuse its dominant position, conduct
     beverages under subheading 2208 90 69 ?                               which is merely potential, not actual : it has not been
                                                                            shown that such abuse has taken place, nor is it possible
                                                                            that such abuse ever could take place .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 September 1996 in Case T-155/94: Climax Paper Converters Ltd v. Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duties - State-trading country - Individual treatment - Single dumping margin)

text:
 No C 318/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 10 . 96
 How, if at all, would the answers given to the questions                   ( Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main of 27 August
 referred in the case of Snares v. Adjudication Officer ( Case              1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 C-20/96 )( 1 ) differ in the case of a claimant entitled under             11 September 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
 United Kingdom legislation to attendance allowance as an                  Oelmühle Hamburg Aktiengesellschaft and J. Schmidt
 employed or self-employed person, in the light of the terms               Söhne     GmbH       &     Co .   KG     v.   Bundesanstalt      fur
 of the United Kingdom's declaration of 31 December 1986                   Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung ( Federal Office                     of
 pusuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                        Agriculture and Food ) on the following question :
  1408/71 ( 2 ) ' and of point 11 of Section O ( previously
 Section L ) of Annex VI to that Regulation ?
 (') Case C-20/96 Kelvin Albert Snares v. Adjudication Officer, ( OJ
       No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 ).                                   Is it compatible with Community law for German national
 ( 2 ) Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971        law to preclude the recovery of aid wrongly granted for the
       on the application of social security schemes to employed           processing of rape where the recipient, who was unaware of
       persons and their families moving within the Community ( OJ         the facts giving rise to the illegality of the notice of grant and
       No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p. 2 ).                                   whose ignorance thereof did not result from gross
                                                                           negligence ( paragraph 48 ( 2 ), seventh sentence, now
                                                                           paragraph 49a ( 2 ), second sentence, of the Ver
                                                                           waltungsverfahrensgesetz          ( Law on Administrative
                                                                           Procedure )), is able to rely, pursuant to Article 48 (2 ), sixth
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                           sentence, of that Law ( paragraph 49a ( 2 ) of the new version )
 Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that
                                                                           in conjunction with paragraph 818 ( 3 ) of the Bürgerliches
 court of 27 August 1996 in the case of Oelmühle Hamburg
                                                                           Gesetzbuch ( Civil Code ), on the absence of ( unjust)
 Aktiengesellschaft and J. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG
                                                                           enrichment, where there would normally be held to be no
       v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung
                                                                           such enrichment if the recipient has already passed on the
                            ( Case C-298/96 )                             pecuniary advantage of the aid at the time when it is granted
                              ( 96/C 318/ 16 )                             by paying the target price provided for under Community
                                                                          legislation and has obtained no right of recourse, or merely a
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   worthless right of recourse, against the supplier of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                   processed rape ?
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  subsequently by Mr Hoff-Nielsen and Yves Cretien, then by
                         of 18 September 1996                             Mr Hoff-Nielsen, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.
                                                                          Berrisch ), supported by the Commission of the European
in Case T- 155/94: Climax Paper Converters Ltd v. Council                 Communities ( Agents: Eric White and Nicholas Khan ),
                      of the European Union ( 1 )                         application for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EC )
 (Anti-dumping duties — State-trading country — Individual                No 3664/93 of 22 December 1993 imposing a definitive
               treatment — Single dumping margin)                         anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of
                              ( 96/C 318 / 17 )                           photograph albums in bookbound form originating in the
                                                                          People's Republic of China and collecting definitively the
                                                                          provisional anti-dumping duty ( 2 ) — the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition ), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                                                                          President, R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Azizi and J. D.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Cooke, Judges, Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                          Administrator, has given a judgment on 18 September 1996 ,
                                                                          in which it:
In Case T- 155/94 : Climax Paper Converters Ltd, having its
registered office in Hong Kong, represented by Izzet M.                   1 . dismisses the application;
Sinan, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Arendt and Medernach, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt against
the Council of the European Union ( Agents : represented                  2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of
initially by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and Jorge Monteiro,                            the Council;
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 318/9
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 September 1996
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                       in Case T-185/95 : Giovanni Sergio v. Commission of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 333 , 1993 , p . 67 .
                                                                                European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                       (Officials — Transfer of pension rights — General
                                                                       provisions forgiving effect to the StaffRegulations — Time
                                                                                limit for submitting a request)
                                                                                96/C 318/ 19 )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 24 September 1996                                             (Language of the case: French)
in    Case   T-57/91 :    National   Association     of Licensed
Opencast Operators v. Commission of the European
                         Communities ( 1 )                             In Case T-185/95 : Giovanni Sergio, an official of the
 (ECSC Treaty — Competition — National undertaking                     Commission of the European Communities, represented by
 owning coal reserves and enjoying a statutory monopoly on             Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
 the granting of extraction licences — Consideration on the            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21
part of the licensee represented by payment of a royalty or            rue Nassau, v. Commission of the European Communities
supply of the coal to the licensor — Rate ofroyalties levied           ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
— Price of coal supplied — Whether compatible with the                 application for annulment of the decision of the
                           ECSC Treaty)                                Commission rejecting the request for transfer of the
                                                                       applicant's pension rights — the Court of First Instance
                           ( 96/C 318/ 18 )
                                                                       ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and
                                                                       B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
                (Language of the case: English)                        given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:
In Case T-57/91 : The National Association of Licensed
 Opencast Operators, having its registered office in                    1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks
Newcastle upon Tyne ( United Kingdom ), represented by                      the issue of directions to the Commission;
Nicholas Green, Barrister, and David James Malcolm
Wilson, Solicitor, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 rue                   2 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;
Aldringen, against the Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall, Stephen Kon and                3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 Leonard Hawkes ), supported by the British Coal
 Corporation, having its registered office in London,
 represented by David Vaughan QC and David Lloyd Jones,                (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Barrister, together with Peter J. Sigler and Rebekah M.
 Gershuny, Solicitors, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 rue Zithe —
 application for the annulment in part of Commission
 decision SG(91 ) D/9467 of 23 May 1991 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint concerning the market in coal for
 electricity generation — the Court of First Instance ( Third
 Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: C. P.
 Briët, President, K. Lenaerts, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh and A.          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                              of 26 September 1996
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in             in Case T-192/94: Henry Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of
 which it :                                                                            the European Communities (*)
                                                                        (Action for annulment — Staff report — Admissibility —
 1 . declares inadmissible the second, seventh and ninth                 Statement of reasons — Review by the Court — Limits)
       heads of claim;                                                                           ( 96/C 318 /20
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the applicant 's claims;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 3 . Orders the applicant to pay all the costs of the
       proceedings, including those of the intervener British
       Coal.                                                            In Case T-192/94 : Henry Maurissen, a former official at the
                                                                        Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                        Schuttrange ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noel
 (') OJ No C 243 , 18 . 9 . 1991 .                                      Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue
                                                                        Glesener, v. Court of Auditors of the European


title: Case C-526/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, Other parties: Uber NV and Others

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, Other parties: Uber NV and Others
   (Case C-526/15)
   (2015/C 429/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uber Belgium BVBA

      Defendant: Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

      Other parties to the proceedings: Uber NV and Others, Brusselse Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgische Federatie van Taxis, Nationale Groepering van Ondernemingen met Taxi- and Locatievoertuigen met Chauffeur VZW

      Question referred

   Should the principle of proportionality, laid down in Article 5 TEU and Article 52(1) of the Charter, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Charter and with Articles 28 TFEU and 56 TFEU, be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in the Ordonnantie van het Brusselse Hoofstedelijk Gewest van 27 april 1995 betreffende de taxidiensten voor het verhuren van voertuigen met vervoerder (Ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 27 April 1995 relating to taxis and services for the rental of vehicles with carrier), be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘taxi services’ (‘taxidiensten’) also applies to unpaid individual carriers who are involved in ride sharing (shared transport) by accepting ride requests which they are offered by means of a software application of the companies Uber BV et al established in another Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-268/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for ‘cement and related products’ — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-268/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))
   (2016/C 156/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italmobiliare SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and L Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by M. Malaguti, avvocatessa)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Italmobiliare v Commission (T-305/11, EU:T:2014:126);

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 2364 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products);

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Italmobiliare SpA, both in the proceedings at first instance in Case T-305/11 and in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case F-129/11: Action brought on 9 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/73

      Action brought on 9 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-129/11)
      (2012/C 25/142)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Ph.-E. Partsch and E. Raimond, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Partial annulment of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF concerning the applicant’s last invitation to an interview in the framework of an internal investigation and indicating that a final report on the investigation will be adopted solely on the basis of the information collected and analysed unilaterally by OLAF if the applicant does not take up that invitation.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of 28 October 2011 by which OLAF, acting through its General Director, invited the applicant to attend an interview that was to take place on 1 and 2 December 2011 in the premises of OLAF, in Brussels, at eight o’clock in the morning, within the framework of the ‘internal’ investigation concerning reference OF/2010/0207 and notified her that a report terminating the investigation would be drawn up without first giving her the opportunity to be heard if she did not take up that invitation, as that infringes her right to a fair hearing and her fundamental rights;

                  —

                  grant the applicant the sum of EUR 4 000 in damages and compensatory interest;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases C-105/15 P to C-109/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — Konstantinos Mallis (C-105/15 P), Elli Konstantinou Malli (C-105/15 P), Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (C-106/15 P), Petros Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Elenitsa Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Lella Chatziioannou (C-108/15 P), Marinos Nikolaou (C-109/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank (Appeals — Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus — Eurogroup statement concerning, in particular, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus — Actions for annulment)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/14

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — Konstantinos Mallis (C-105/15 P), Elli Konstantinou Malli (C-105/15 P), Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (C-106/15 P), Petros Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Elenitsa Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Lella Chatziioannou (C-108/15 P), Marinos Nikolaou (C-109/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank
   (Joined Cases C-105/15 P to C-109/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Eurogroup statement concerning, in particular, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Actions for annulment))
   (2016/C 419/17)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellants: Konstantinos Mallis (C-105/15 P), Elli Konstantinou Malli (C-105/15 P), Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (C-106/15 P), Petros Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Elenitsa Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Lella Chatziioannou (C-108/15 P), Marinos Nikolaou (C-109/15 P) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigoroi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Koutsoukou, O. Heinz and K. Laurinavičius, acting as Agents, and H.G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-105/15 P to C-109/15 P;

               2.

               Orders Konstantinos Mallis, Elli Konstantinou Malli, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou, Petros Chatzithoma, Elenitsa Chatzithoma, Lella Chatziioannou and Marinos Nikolaou to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Case C-245/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — ROJ TV A/S v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — ROJ TV A/S v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-245/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/33
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ROJ TV A/S

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Question referred

   A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether and, if so, the circumstances under which the application of national legislation concerning the prohibition of an association for infringement of the principles of international understanding falls within the field coordinated by Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (2) of 30 June 1997 and, thus, is precluded by Article 2a of the directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

      (2)  Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  13 October 2005  in Case C-458/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen, Parking Brixen GmbH v Gemeinde Brixen, Stadtwerke Brixen AG (Public procurement — Procedures for the award of public contracts — Service concession — Management of public pay car parks)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 13 October 2005
   in Case C-458/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen, Parking Brixen GmbH v Gemeinde Brixen, Stadtwerke Brixen AG (1)

   (Public procurement - Procedures for the award of public contracts - Service concession - Management of public pay car parks)
   (2005/C 296/07)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-458/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen (Italy), made by decision of 23 July 2003, received at the Court on 30 October 2003, in the proceedings between Parking Brixen GmbH and Gemeinde Brixen and Stadtwerke Brixen AG — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and E. Juhász, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The award, by a public authority to a service provider, of the management of a public pay car park, in consideration for which that provider is remunerated by sums paid by third parties for the use of that car park, is a public service concession to which Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts does not apply.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, and the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency, are to be interpreted as precluding a public authority from awarding, without putting it out to tender, a public service concession to a company limited by shares which resulted from the conversion of a special undertaking of that public authority, whose objects have been extended to significant new areas, whose capital must obligatorily be opened in the short term to other capital, the geographical area of whose activities has been extended to the entire country and abroad, and whose Administrative Board possesses very broad management powers which it can exercise independently.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.01.2004.


title: Action brought on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte against the European Parliament (Case T-161/98)

text:
C 378/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.12.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants, who import bananas from third countries,             Ð annul the decision of 18 January 1988 downgrading
contest the Commission's decision to disregard, for the                  him from grade A 3 to grade A 7;
purposes of calculating the quantity of bananas which the
applicants may import in 1998, part of the quantity of
imported bananas declared by the applicants for the 1996             Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
reference year.                                                          present proceedings and of all proceedings concerning
                                                                         that decision;
They seek annulment of that decision on the following
grounds:                                                             Ð order the European Paliament:
Ð infringement of the second paragraph of Article 6 of                   Ð to pay over the guarantee fund relating to the
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93: the                             person concerned;
     Commission did not inform the applicants prior to
     1 November 1997 of the quantity of bananas allocated                Ð to pay the applicant the difference in emoluments
     to them;                                                                between grade A 3 and grade A 7, together with
                                                                             the difference in pension;
Ð infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
     contested decision is not supported by a statement of               Ð to pay compensation for the non-material loss
     reasons;                                                                suffered by him.
Ð breach of the applicants' procedural rights:                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Ð breach of the rights of the defence, the right to a
         fair hearing and the right of access to the                 The applicant states that, in the course of proceedings
         documents in the file: the applicants were not              brought by the Parliament against the Royale Belge
         given access to the documents; the Commission               insurance company before the Tribunal d'Arrondissement,
         wrongly imposed on the applicants the burden of             Luxembourg, in which it sought indemnification in respect
         proof concerning the type of certificate used by            of an alleged loss of funds, the Parliament's representative
         their consignees in order to secure customs                 stated that the applicant was not responsible for the loss
         clearance of the bananas; and the Commission                of supporting documents Ð that being the main complaint
         disregarded the evidential weight attaching to the          on the basis of which the disciplinary measure was taken
         contractual obligations to which the applicants'            against him on 18 January 1988 Ð but for the loss of
         consignees were subject;                                    cash sums.
     Ð infringement of Article 2 of Regulation No 1
                                                                     The applicant maintains that that statement amounts to
         regulating the use of languages in the European
                                                                     a withdrawal of the main accusation which resulted
         Economic Community;
                                                                     in the imposition of the disciplinary measure by the
                                                                     administrative authority which made that accusation. He
Ð breach of the principle of sound management and of                 considers, therefore, that that measure should be annulled.
     the principle prohibiting arbitrary acts.
                                                                     Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Giuseppe Carraro
Action brought on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte                    against the Commission of the European Communities
               against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-164/98)
                       (Case T-161/98)
                                                                                (98/C 378/41)
                         (98/C 378/40)
                (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                An Action against the Commission of the European
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte,                    Instance of the European Communities on 12 October
residing at Gravelotte (France), represented by Henri                1998 by Giuseppe Carraro, represented by Giuseppe
Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for service         Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AndreÂ Lutgen, 1 Rue                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
J.-P. Brasseur.                                                      Mathias Hardt.


title: Case C-658/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/6

         Action brought on 21 December 2011 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-658/11)
   2012/C 58/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola and M. Allik, Agent)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer; (1)

               —

               order that the effects of Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 be maintained until it is replaced;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Parliament considers that Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer is invalid because it does not relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, as expressly provided for in Article 218(6), second paragraph, TFEU.
   The European Parliament considers that the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius also relates to judicial cooperation in criminal matters,.police cooperation, and development cooperation, covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.
   Therefore, this Agreement should have been concluded after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in accordance with Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU.
   For this reason the Council has violated the Treaties by failing to choose the appropriate legal basis for the conclusion of the Agreement.
   Furthermore, the European Parliament considers that the Council has violated Article 218(10) TFEU, because it did not inform Parliament fully and immediately at the stages of negotiation and conclusion of the Agreement.
   Should the Court of Justice annul the contested Decision, the European Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

      (1)  OJ L 254, p. 1


title: Case T-126/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Direct Way and Directway Worldwide v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Transport for Members of the European Parliament — Decision to declare unsuccessful and to close the tendering procedure and to initiate a negotiated procedure — Award of contract to another tenderer — Equal treatment — Substantial change to the original conditions of the contract)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Direct Way and Directway Worldwide v Parliament
   (Case T-126/13) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Transport for Members of the European Parliament - Decision to declare unsuccessful and to close the tendering procedure and to initiate a negotiated procedure - Award of contract to another tenderer - Equal treatment - Substantial change to the original conditions of the contract))
   (2015/C 429/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Direct Way (Machelen, Belgium) and Directway Worldwide (Machelen) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and P. Biström, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul three European Parliament decisions relating to awarding the contract for transport services for Members of the Parliament in Brussels.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Direct Way and Directway Worldwide to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-427/07: Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Mirto Corporación Empresarial v OHIM — Maglificio Barbara (Mirtillino)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/47

         Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Mirto Corporación Empresarial v OHIM — Maglificio Barbara (Mirtillino)
   (Case T-427/07)
   (2008/C 22/89)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Mirto Corporación Empresarial, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Maglificio Barbara Srl
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2007 in Case R 875/2006-2 and order expressly that OHIM pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Maglificio Barbara Srl

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Mirtillino’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 (application No 3 252 467)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Creaciones Mirto, S.A.; the applicant following transfer of the marks at issue in the opposition proceedings.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘MIRTO’ (Community trade mark No 1 653 351) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 and a number of other national word and figurative marks ‘MIRTO’.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision under appeal and dismissal of the opposition.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-452/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 18 November 2009 — Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle v Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Università di Pisa

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 18 November 2009 — Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle v Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Università di Pisa
   (Case C-452/09)
   2010/C 24/58
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte di Appello di Firenze

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle

      Defendants: Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Università di Pisa

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Community law that the Italian State may, in relation to the period preceding the adoption of the first national legislation implementing Directive 82/76/EEC, (1) lawfully rely on five-year limitation or ten-year ordinary limitation, in respect of a right arising under that directive? — without thereby definitively preventing that right, relating to pay/essential needs, from being exercised, or, failing which, an action for compensation/damages from being brought?

               2.

               Is it compatible with Community law, on the other hand, that all preliminary objections of limitation be precluded because they definitively prevent the above right from being exercised?

               3.

               In the alternative, is it compatible with Community law that all preliminary objections of limitation be precluded until such time as the Court of Justice confirms the infringement of Community law (in the present case, up until 1999)?

               4.

               In the further alternative, is it compatible with Community law that all preliminary objections of limitation be precluded in any event until such time as the directive establishing the right has been correctly and fully transposed into national law (which, in the present case, never occurred), as laid down in the judgment in Emmott?

      (1)  OJ L 43, 15.2.1982, p. 21.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 1999 in Case T-37/97: Forges de Clabecq SA v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC - State aid - Action for annulment - Plea of illegality - Fifth Steel Aid Code)

text:
5.6.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 160/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 25 March 1999                                                        of 25 February 1999
in Case T-37/97: Forges de Clabecq SA v. Commission of                     in Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98: Antonio Giannini
                  the European Communities (1)                                   v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC — State aid — Action for annulment — Plea of                        (Officials — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Com-
                illegality — Fifth Steel Aid Code)                        pliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance —
                                                                                Misuse of powers)
                          (1999/C 160/36)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/37)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In case T-37/97: Forges de Clabecq SA, established at Clabecq
(Belgium), in the person of Alain Zenner, Dominique Jossart,              In Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98: Antonio Giannini, an
Gérard Leplat and Gilbert Demez, receivers, represented in the            official of the Commission of the European Communities,
present proceedings by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten, of the                  residing in Brussels, represented by Marc Dallemagne and
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            Carlo Locchi, of the Brussels Bar, 85, rue du Prince royal,
Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim,                     Brussels, v. Commission of the European Communities
supported by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan                   (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application,
Devadder, General Adviser in the Legal Service of the Ministry            first, for annulment of the decisions taken by the Commission
of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Jean-Marie de            in compliance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance
Backer, Georges Vandersanden, Olivier Ralet and Laure Levi,               of 19 March 1997 in Case T-21/96 Giannini v. Commission
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            [1997] ECR-SC II-211 and, second, for compensation for the
at the Belgian Embassy, 4, rue des Girondins, Walloon Region,             material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant
represented by Jean-Marie de Backer, Georges Vandersanden                 on account of those decisions — the Court of First Instance
and Olivier Ralet, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for               (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,            dent, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges: J. Palacio González,
30, rue de Cessange, and Société wallonne pour la sidérurgie              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
SA (SWS), established in Liège (Belgium), represented by                  25 February 1999, in which it:
Jean-Marie de Backer, Georges Vandersanden and Olivier Ralet,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange,             1. annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 April 1997 cancelling
v. Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Gérard                       vacancy notice COM/151/94, issued with a view to filling the
Rozet) — application for annulment of the Commission                           post of ‘Head of Unit responsible for the negotiation and
Decision of 18 December 1996 declaring certain financial                       management of textile agreements; footwear’, and vacancy notice
assistance granted to the applicant to be incompatible with the                COM/062/97, issued with a view to filling the post of ‘Head of
common market — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                            Unit responsible for the negotiation and management of textile
Chamber, extended composition), composed of: R. M. Moura                       agreements; footwear and other industries’,
Ramos, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh
and P. Mengozzi, Judges: J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 1999, in              2. annuls the Commission’s decision of 30 May 1997 appointing
which it:                                                                      Mr X to the post of ‘Head of Unit responsible for the negotiation
                                                                               and management of textile agreements; footwear and other
                                                                               industries’,
1. dismisses the action,
                                                                          3. dismisses the remainder of the actions,
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of
     the defendant,
                                                                          4. orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
3. orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997 and OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.


title: Case C-171/12 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2012 by Carrols Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2012 in Case T-291/09 Carrols Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Mr Giulio Gambettola

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/19

         Appeal brought on 11 April 2012 by Carrols Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2012 in Case T-291/09 Carrols Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Mr Giulio Gambettola
   (Case C-171/12 P)
   2012/C 174/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Carrols Corp. (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Mr Giulio Gambettola

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2012 in Case T-291/09;

               —

               uphold in their entirety the claims put forward by Carrols Corp. at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Infringement of European Union law by the General Court, as a result of breach of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) and the case-law interpreting it.
   In the judgment under appeal, the General Court concluded that ‘the fact that the signs at issue are identical does not establish bad faith on the part of the intervener, where there are no other relevant factors’.
   Case C-529/07 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli [2009] ECR I-4893 makes clear that ‘[w]hether the applicant is acting in bad faith … must be the subject of an overall assessment, taking into account all the factors relevant to the particular case’ (paragraph 37 of the judgment). However, Carrols Corp. submits that the General Court erred by assessing each of the facts individually and in isolation, precluding an overall view being taken and unreasonably increasing the burden of proof on Carrols Corp., thereby prejudicing its right to an effective remedy.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-559/11: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — BybyOKD v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Sale by the Czech Republic of its minority shareholding in the company OKD as part of a privatisation — Decision finding no State aid — Professional association — No individual concern — Concept of party concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/22

         Order of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — BybyOKD v Commission
   (Case T-559/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Sale by the Czech Republic of its minority shareholding in the company OKD as part of a privatisation - Decision finding no State aid - Professional association - No individual concern - Concept of party concerned - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 189/46
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Sdružení nájemníků BybyOKD.cz (Ostrava, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Pelikán, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4927 final of 13 July 2011 concerning the sale to Karbon Invest a.s. of the minority shareholding of the Czech State in OKD a.s. and declaring that that sale did not constitute State aid (State aid No SA.25076 (2011/NN) (OJ 2011 C 225, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Sdružení nájemníků BybyOKD.cz shall pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of RPG Industries Limited.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2005 in Case C-510/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/6/EC — Formalities for ships — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 9 June 2005
   in Case C-510/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/6/EC - Formalities for ships - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 193/13)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-510/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and W. Wils) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: M. Wimmer) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 December 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States of the Community, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005.


title: Case F-2/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Language in which the decision rejecting a complaint was written — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Signed copy of the application sent by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — That copy and the original signed application received subsequently not the same — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/21

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-2/13) (1)

   (Civil service - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Language in which the decision rejecting a complaint was written - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Signed copy of the application sent by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - That copy and the original signed application received subsequently not the same - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2014/C 31/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request to apply to the salary received by him from May 2001 until the end of his mission in Angola the correction coefficient referred to in Articles 12 and 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013, p. 30.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-203/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) - Air traffic - Registration of aircraft)

text:
20.11.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 333/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 8 July 1999                                                             of 8 July 1999
in Case C-203/98: Commission of the European Communi-                      in Case C-215/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators con-
Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) — Air traffic — Registration of                  taining certain dangerous substances — Failure by a Member
                               aircraft)                                   State to adopt the programmes provided for in Article 6 of
                                                                                the Directive)
                           (1999/C 333/17)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/18)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-203/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: Maria Patakia) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Anni                   In Case C-215/98: Commission of the European Communities
Snoecx) — application for a declaration that, by requiring that            (Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
Community operators be resident or established for one year                Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Nana Dafniou) — application
in Belgium in order to register aircraft there and by refusing to          for a declaration that, by failing to draw up and notify within
authorise flights requested by them, thus unjustifiably or                 the prescribed period the programmes provided for in Article 6
excessively hindering the temporary or permanent provision                 of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteri-
of services in the field of air traffic other than for transport,          es and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 38), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
under Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                   fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth
amendment, Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court                    Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of                Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward
Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges;                and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
                                                                           1. Declared that, by failing to draw up within the prescribed
1. Declares that, by requiring Community operators to be resident               period the programmes provided for in Article 6 of Council
    or established for one year in Belgium before they can register             Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
    aircraft there, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its             accumulators containing certain dangerous substances, the Hell-
    obligations under Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after            enic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;
    amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC);
                                                                           2. Ordered the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                              (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-160/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Friedrich Skalka v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft (Social security for migrant workers — Austrian rules on compensatory supplements to retirement pensions — Classification of benefits and lawfulness of the residence requirement under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-160/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Friedrich Skalka v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Austrian rules on compensatory supplements to retirement pensions - Classification of benefits and lawfulness of the residence requirement under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
   (2004/C 118/38)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-160/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Friedrich Skalka and Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft — on the interpretation of Articles 4(2a) and 10a of, and Annex IIa to, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled that:
   The provisions of Article 10a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, and those of Annex IIa thereto must be interpreted as meaning that the compensatory supplement, within the meaning of the Gewerbliche Sozialversicherungsgesetz (Austrian Federal Law of 11 October 1978 on Social Insurance for self-employed persons engaged in trade and commerce), falls within the scope of that regulation and therefore constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation, so that the situation of a person who, after 1 June 1992, fulfils the conditions for the grant of that benefit is governed with effect from 1 January 1995, the date of the Republic of Austria's accession to the European Union, solely by the coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a.

      (1)  OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.


title: Case T-276/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — Martin v Parliament

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/55

         Action brought on 23 July 2007 — Martin v Parliament
   (Case T-276/07)
   (2007/C 211/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Hans-Petter Martin (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 10 May 2007 taken by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, notified on 14 May 2007, according to which it was decided that a certain sum had been paid unduly to the applicant and that, pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Rules governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament, that sum was to be recovered from the applicant;

               —

               If necessary, annul the decision of 13 June 2007 originating from the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, taken pursuant to the decision of 10 May 2007, putting the applicant on formal notice to pay the aforementioned amounts or to propose a written clearance plan accepted by the Parliament within 30 days of that decision;

               —

               Annul, if necessary and where applicable, all decisions implementing the aforementioned decisions which might arise in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following an investigation concerning the secretarial allowances granted to the applicant in his capacity as Member of the European Parliament, the OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) drew up a report finding certain irregularities. On the basis of that report, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament adopted the contested decision of 10 May 2007, by which it decided that the sums which had been paid unduly to the applicant were to be reimbursed by him pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Rules governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament.
   The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of his action.
   The first plea alleges incorrect and inaccurate application of the Rules governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament, in particular Articles 14 and 27(3) thereof.
   The second plea alleges an error of assessment as to the relevance of the supporting documents provided by the applicant.
   Moreover, the applicant relies on a plea alleging infringement of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1) and infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.
   Lastly, the applicant puts forward a plea alleging breach of the principle audi alteram partem and of the rights of the defence.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.


title: Case C-55/99: Action brought on 18 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 100/16               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
Court Registry on 17 February 1999, for preliminary                 Do the provisions of Article 73d of the Treaty of 25 March
rulings in the cases of Office National des Pensions v.             1957 establishing the European Community, as amended,
Gioconda Camarotto and Office National des Pensions v.              according to which the prohibition of all restrictions on
Giuseppina Vignone on the following questions:                      movements of capital between Member States is without
                                                                    prejudice to the right of Member States to take measures
                                                                    which are justified on grounds of public policy or public
                                                                    security', allow a Member State, in derogation from the
1. Does Article 95a of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    system of full freedom or the declaration system
     No 1408/71 (1) as amended by Council Regulation
                                                                    applicable to foreign investments within its territory, to
     (EEC) No 1248/92, refer solely to recipients of
                                                                    maintain a system of prior authorisation for such
     pensions where the decision granting the pension was
                                                                    investments as may adversely affect public order, public
     final at the time of the entry into force of the
                                                                    health or public security, it being specified that this
     amendment, or does it relate also to recipients of
                                                                    authorisation is deemed to have been obtained one month
     pensions who before the entry into force of the
                                                                    after receipt of the investment declaration submitted to the
     amendments introduced by the new regulation had
                                                                    Minister unless the latter, within the same period, declares
     already brought proceedings before a national court
                                                                    that the transaction in question has been deferred?
     seeking to obtain precisely the right to the pension by
     contesting the application of the national rules against
     overlapping, a final decision in those proceedings not
     yet having been given at the time of the entry into
     force of the new provisions?
2. If Article 95a applies to all recipients without
     distinction, must the application referred to in               Action brought on 18 February 1999 by the Commission
     Article 95a(4) be made to the competent social                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
     security institution in accordance with the formalities                                (Case C-55/99)
     required by national legislation for the bringing of an
     application for review, or may it be made to the court                                (1999/C 100/31)
     before which the dispute has been brought in
     accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, and
     in the latter case must the period of two years referred
                                                                    An action against the French Republic was brought before
     to in Article 95a(5) and (6) likewise be complied with?
                                                                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    18 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
                                                                    Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
    the application of social security schemes to employed          Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
    persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their       national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
    families moving within the Community, (OJ, English Special      acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    Edition 1971, p 416).                                           Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                    that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð declare that, by establishing, in Decree No 96Ð351 of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
                                                                        19 April 1996 (1), a procedure for the registration of
d'Etat by decision of 6 January 1999 in the case of
                                                                        medical reagents, and by imposing in that decree the
Association Eglise de Scientologie de Paris' and
                                                                        obligation to state the registration number on the
Scientology International Reserves Trust v. French
                                                                        external packaging and the notice accompanying each
                            Republic
                                                                        reagent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                         (Case C-54/99)                                 obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;
                        (1999/C 100/30)
                                                                    Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 6 January 1999 by               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
the French Conseil d'Etat, which was received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Association Eglise de Scientologie de        1. In the Commission's view, the application to all
Paris' and Scientology International Reserves Trust v.                  reagents covered by Decree No 96Ð351 of 19 April
French Republic on the following question:                              1996, without distinction as to the level of the
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 100/17
     potential risk to public health involved in the event of       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
     their proving to be unreliable, of a registration              Administratif de Paris by decision of 9 December 1998 in
     procedure which necessitates the compilation of a              the case of Gascogne Limousin Viandes SA v. Office
     substantial amount of documentation by the                     National Interprofessionnel des Viandes, de l'EÂlevage et de
     manufacturer, the importer or the distributor and                                  l'Aviculture (OFIVAL)
     which delays the placing of the reagent on the market,
     constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a                                    (Case C-56/99)
     quantitative restriction on imports which, having                                     (1999/C 100/32)
     regard to its disproportionate nature, is not justified
     on grounds of the protection of health and life of
     humans under Article 36 of the EC Treaty.                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by decision of 9 December 1998
                                                                    by the Tribunal Administratif de Paris (Administrative
2. Article 5 of the Decree provides that the
                                                                    Court, Paris), which was received at the Court Registry
     accompanying notice, the primary packaging and the
                                                                    on 19 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
     external packaging of each reagent are to state the
                                                                    of Gascogne Limousin Viandes SA v. Office National
     registration with the medicinal products agency. The
                                                                    Interprofessionel des Viandes, de l'EÂlevage et de
     Commission       considers   that that requirement
                                                                    l'Aviculture (OFIVAL) on the following question:
     constitutes an unjustified restriction on intra-
     Community trade within the meaning of Article 30 of
     the EC Treaty.                                                 Do the provisions in Article 40 of the Treaty of 25 March
                                                                    1957 preclude the adoption of aid measures benefiting
(1) JORF of 26.4.1996, p. 6386.                                     products distinguished according to criteria established at
                                                                    national level where those products may be marketed in
                                                                    all of the Community Member States?
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
                     of 11 February 1999                            Philippe II, v. Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-86/96, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luft-                (Agents: Anders Jessen, Paul Nemitz, Hans-Jürgen Rabe
fahrt-Unternehmen v. Commission of the European                     and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application for annulment of
                        Communities (1)                             Commission Decision 96/369/EC of 13 March 1996
                                                                    concerning fiscal aid given to German airlines in the form
(State aid Ð Air transport Ð Tax measure Ð Action for               of a depreciation facility (OJ L 146, 20.6.1996, p. 42) Ð
                  annulment Ð Inadmissible)                         the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
                                                                    Composition), composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, R.
                       (1999/C 100/33)
                                                                    García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras,
                                                                    Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                                                                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in
                (Language of the case: German)                      which it:
In Case T-86/96: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-           1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
Unternehmen, established in Bonn and comprising the
following members: Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH & Co.
Luftverkehrs-KG, established in Oberursel (Germany), Air
Berlin GmbH & Co. Luftverkehrs KG, established in                   2. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
Berlin, Condor Flugdienst GmbH, established in                           costs.
Kelsterbach (Germany), Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,
established in Berlin, Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.
established in Langenhagen (Germany), LTU Lufttransport
Unternehmen GmbH & Co. KG, established in Düsseldorf
(Germany), and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
established in Langenhagen, represented by Gerrit Schohe,


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2005 in Case C-145/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n° 20 de Madrid: Heirs of Annette Keller v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Others (Social security — Articles 3 and 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 — Article 22 of Regulation No 574/72 — Hospital treatment in a Member State other than the competent Member State — Need for vital urgent treatment — Transfer of the insured person to a hospital institution in a non-member country — Scope of forms E 111 and E 112)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 April 2005
   in Case C-145/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 20 de Madrid: Heirs of Annette Keller v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Others (1)

   (Social security - Articles 3 and 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 - Article 22 of Regulation No 574/72 - Hospital treatment in a Member State other than the competent Member State - Need for vital urgent treatment - Transfer of the insured person to a hospital institution in a non-member country - Scope of forms E 111 and E 112)
   (2005/C 132/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-145/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social no 20 de Madrid (Spain), made by decision of 6 November 2001, received at the Court on 31 March 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between the Heirs of Annette Keller and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 22(1)(a)(i) and (c)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Article 22(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, both as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent institution has consented, by issuing a Form E 111 or Form E 112, to one of its insured persons receiving medical treatment in a Member State other than the competent Member State, it is bound by the findings as regards the need for urgent vitally necessary treatment made during the period of validity of the form by doctors authorised by the institution of the Member State of stay, and by the decision of those doctors, taken during that period on the basis of those findings and the current state of medical knowledge, to transfer the patient to a hospital establishment in another State, even if that State is a non-member country. However, in such a situation, in accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) and (c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, the insured person's right to the benefits in kind provided on behalf of the competent institution is subject to the condition that, under the legislation administered by the institution of the Member State of stay, that institution is obliged to provide persons insured with it with the benefits in kind corresponding to such treatment.
               In such circumstances, the competent institution is not entitled to require the person concerned to return to the competent Member State in order to undergo a medical examination there or to have him examined in the Member State of stay, nor to make the above findings and decisions subject to its approval.

               2.

               Where doctors authorised by the institution of the Member State of stay have for reasons of vital urgency and in the light of current medical knowledge chosen to transfer the insured person to a hospital establishment in a non-member country, Article 22(1)(a)(i) and (c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the cost of the treatment provided in that State must be borne by the institution of the Member State of stay in accordance with the legislation administered by that institution, under the same conditions as those applicable to insured persons covered by that legislation. In the case of treatment which is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the competent Member State, it is then for the institution of that State to bear the cost of the benefits thus provided, by reimbursing the institution of the Member State of stay under the conditions laid down in Article 36 of Regulation No 1408/71.
               Where the cost of the treatment provided in an establishment in a non-member country has not been assumed by the institution of the Member State of stay, but it is established that the person concerned was entitled to have the cost borne and the treatment is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the competent Member State, it is for the competent institution to reimburse to that person or his heirs directly the cost of that treatment, so as to ensure a level of assumption of costs equivalent to that which that person would have enjoyed if the provisions of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 had been applied.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.


title: Case C-558/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — SIA Kurcums Metal v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — ‘Taifun’ composite cables manufactured in Russia, made of polypropylene and steel thread — Corrugated clips with rounded tips connected by means of a pin — Anti-dumping duties on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/21

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — SIA Kurcums Metal v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-558/11) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - ‘Taifun’ composite cables manufactured in Russia, made of polypropylene and steel thread - Corrugated clips with rounded tips connected by means of a pin - Anti-dumping duties on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey)
   2013/C 9/34
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA Kurcums Metal

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) and Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 of 2 August 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey (OJ 2001 L 211, p. 1) — ‘Taifun’ composite cables manufactured in Russia, made of polypropylene and steel thread — Classification in subheading 5607 49 11 or subheading 7312 10 98 of the Combined Nomenclature — Corrugated clips with rounded tips connected by means of a pin — Classification in subheading 7317 00 90 or subheading 7326 90 98 of the Combined Nomenclature — Definitive anti-dumping duties

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Subheading 5607 49 11 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that cables such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which consist of both polypropylene and wound steel thread, do not fall as such within that subheading.

               2.

               General rule 3(b) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the tariff classification of cables such as those at issue in the main proceedings is not to be carried out pursuant to that rule, subject to verification by the referring court, in the light of all the elements of fact placed before it, that neither of the two materials of which those cables are composed in itself gives those cables their essential character.

               3.

               Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 of 2 August 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that cables such as those at issue in the main proceedings, on the assumption that they are covered by subheading 7312 10 98 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, fall within the scope of that provision.

               4.

               Subheading 7317 00 90 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that corrugated clips with rounded tips connected by means of a pin, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not fall within that subheading.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case T-321/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — SA.PAR. v OHIM — Salini Costruttori (GRUPPO SALINI) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark GRUPPO SALINI — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — SA.PAR. v OHIM — Salini Costruttori (GRUPPO SALINI)
   (Case T-321/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark GRUPPO SALINI - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 252/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: SA.PAR. Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bussoletti and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Mannucci and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Salini Costruttori SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Bellomunno and S. Troilo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2010 (Case R 219/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Salini Costruttori SpA and SA.PAR. Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders SA.PAR. Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.