title: Case C-549/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/70/EC — Money laundering and terrorist financing — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-549/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/70/EC - Money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 282/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 07.03.2009.


title: Case C-167/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/6

         Action brought on 14 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-167/05)
   (2005/C 171/11)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström van Lier and K. Gross, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by applying internal taxes by which beer mainly produced in Sweden is protected indirectly to against wine mainly imported from other Member States, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Alcoholic beverages are sold to the individual consumer in Sweden via a State-owned retail trade monopoly, Systembolaget AB. Strong beer, in other words beer containing more than 3.5 % alcohol by volume, and wines are sold through Systembolaget AB. Lighter wines in the middle price range are regarded as being interchangeable with strong beer.
   Beer is subject to an alcohol tax which is on average and as a percentage is significantly lower than the equivalent tax on wine. No ground has been put forward which justifies that difference in that selective purchase tax. The difference in the tax affects the price of the respective products. The difference in price is increased by the application of VAT at the rate of 25 % to the products.
   The effect of the tax on the price of the respective products is likely to distort competition between goods and the internal selective purchase taxes are such as to strengthen domestic patterns of consumption, reduce potential consumption of wine and thus they are likely to afford indirect protection to beer to the detriment of wine.


title: Case F-101/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 April 2016 — Claus v Commission

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/66

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 April 2016 — Claus v Commission
      (Case F-101/12) (1)

      (2016/C 211/82)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 147, 25/5/2013, p. 36.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-341/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Cour d'Appel, Paris): criminal proceedings against André Allain and Steel Trading France Sarl, as a party liable at civil law (Customs declaration - Country of origin - German unification - Penalties)

text:
 7 . 12 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 370/ 1
                                                                     I
                                                              (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                           of 11 July 1996                                                  of 26 September 1996
in    Case     C- 11 9/94     P  REV:   Dimitrios   Coussios    v.
                                                                        in Case C-341/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
                                                                        by the Cour d'Appel, Paris ): criminal proceedings against
          Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                  Andre Allain and Steel Trading France Sari, as a party liable
             (Application for revision — Inadmissible)                                           at civil law ( 1 )
                                                                         (Customs declaration — Country of origin -— German
                            ( 96/C 370/01 )                                                unification — Penalties)
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/02 )
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C- 11 9/94 P REV: Dimitrios Coussios ( represented
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
by Georgios Sakellaropoulos ) — application for revision of                       published in the European Court Reports)
the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities (Third Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case
C-l 19/94 P Coussios v. Commission [ 1995] ECR 1-1439,                  In Case C-341 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of              of the EC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel ( Court of Appeal ),
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) —                 Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: J. -P. Puissochet,             pending before that court against Andre Allain and Steel
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and                 Trading France Sari, as a party liable at civil law — on the
C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate               consequences to be drawn, following the unification of the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has delivered a judgment on               Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic
11 July 1996 in which it:                                               Republic, for trade in goods between the territory of the
                                                                        former German Democratic Republic and the rest of the
                                                                        Community's customs territory with regard to the possible
                                                                        reclassification of facts for the purpose of imposing
1 . dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;             penalties — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. N.
                                                                        Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and
                                                                        H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 1996 ,
                                                                        the operative part of which is as follows:
(!) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994, and
     OJ No C 189,22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                        The Community customs provisions, applicable following
                                                                        the unification of the Federal Republic of Germany and the
                                                                        German Democratic Republic, do not preclude a
 ---pagebreak--- No C 370/2             LIN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7 . 12 . 96
reclassification of facts under national law with a view to                     a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4 (1 ) (h)
penalizing breaches of the Community legislation                                of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
applicable at the material time.                                                 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                                employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
f 1 ) OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                            members of their families moving within the
                                                                                Community, in the version amended and updated by
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , as
                                                                                amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
                                                                                30 October 1989 .
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                2 . Where an employed person is subject to the legislation
                         of 10 October 1996                                     of a Member State and lives with his or her family in
                                                                                another Member State, that person 's spouse is entitled,
in Joined Cases C-245/94 and C-3 12/94 (references for a                        under Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , to
preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein                      receive a benefit such as child-raising allowance in the
Westfalen): Ingrid Hoever and Iris Zachow v. Land                               State of employment.
                       Nordrhein-Westfalen (*)
(Social security — Family benefits — Article 73 of                         3 . Article 3 (I ) and (2) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4 (1 ) of Directive                       19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation
79/7/EEC        — Article          7 (2)    of Regulation      (EEC)            of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
                               No 1612/68)
                                                                                in matters of social security must be interpreted as
                              ( 96/C 370/03 )                                   meaning that a child-raising allowance such as that
                                                                                provided for by Article 1 et seq. of the Bundeserzie
                  (Language of the case: German)                                hungsgeldgesetz does not fall within the scope of that
                                                                                Directive.
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
             published in the European Court Reports)                      (!) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994.
                                                                                OJNoC38Q , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Joined Cases C-245/94 and C-3 12/94: reference to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the
Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen ( North Rhine
Westphalia Higher Social Court ) ( Germany ) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Ingrid Hoever and Iris Zachow of the one                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
part and the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Land of North                                              of 15 October 1996
Rhine-Westphalia ) of the other part on the interpretation of
Article 4 ( 1 ) ( h) and Article 73 of Council Regulation ( EEC )          in Case C-3 11/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                    the Netherlands Raad van State ): IJssel-Vliet Combinatie
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                                BV v. Minister van Economische Zaken 0 )
persons and to members of their families moving within the                         (State aid for the construction of a fishing vessel)
Community ( Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971
( II ), p. 416 ), in the version amended and updated by                                               ( 96/C 370/04 )
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ No
L 230 , 1983 , p. 6 ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No
3427/89 of 30 October 1989 ( OJ No L 331 , 1989, p. 1 ), of                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
equal treatment for men and women in matters of social                                published in the European Court Reports)
security ( OJ No L 6, 1979, p. 24 ) and of Article 7 ( 2 ) of
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on      freedom     of   movement       for   workers    within  the       In Case C-3 11 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Community ( Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968                 of the EC Treaty from the Netherlands Raad van State
(II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:                 ( Council of State ) for a preliminary ruling in the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , President of the Chamber, L.                   proceedings pending before that court between IJssel-Vliet
Sevon, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), P. Jann and M.                       Combinatie BV and Minister van Economische Zaken — on
Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General : F. G. Jacobs;                         the interpretation of Articles 42 , 92 and 93 of the EEC
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,                   Treaty, of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 of
has given a judgment on 10 October 1996, in which it rules:                 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve
                                                                           and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector
1 . A benefit such as the child-raising allowance provided                 ( OJ No L 376 , 1986 , p. 7 ), of Council Directive 87/167/
       for by the Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz, which is                     EEC of 26 January 1987 on aid to shipbuilding ( OJ No
       automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain                 L 69, 1987, p. 55 ) and of the guidelines for the examination
       objective criteria, without any individual and                      of State aids in the fisheries sector ( OJ No C 313 , 1988 ,
       discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which               p. 21 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
       is intended to meet family expenses, must be treated as             President, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon


title: Case T-625/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/37

         Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie)
   (Case T-625/13)
   2014/C 45/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1502/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark claiming the colour green containing the verbal element ‘Darjeeling collection de lingerie’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 466 228

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case T-411/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a contour bottle without fluting) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a contour bottle without fluting — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a contour bottle without fluting)
   (Case T-411/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a contour bottle without fluting - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 118/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 540/2013-2), concerning proceedings for the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a contour bottle.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Coca-Cola Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case T-383/03: Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor Inc. against the Council of the European Union

text:
24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/43
—     initiated the formal investigation procedure under                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to three cases
      of alleged aid consisting in an increase of capital of EUR
      736 million, with an issue premium of EUR 586 million,
      and of two subsequent injections of EUR 105 million and              The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation
      EUR 50 million respectively by way of issue premia;                  1480/2003 of 11 August 2003 imposing a definitive
                                                                           countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional
—     rejects the arguments of the Kingdom of Spain, based on              duty imposed on imports of certain electronic microcircuits
      Article 296 of the EC Treaty, thus ruling out the specific           known as DRAMs (dynamic random access memories) orig-
      procedures provided for by Article 198(1) and (2);                   inating in the Republic of Korea (1).
—     questions, according to the applicant, whether certain aid
      authorised in 1997 in the same sector, in relation to
                                                                           With its first two pleas, the applicant contests the finding that
      which the abovementioned aid ought to be considered
                                                                           it failed to cooperate. According to the applicant, the defendant
      additional aid, is compatible with Community law.
                                                                           disregarded the Arthur Andersen report determining the
                                                                           applicant’s liquidation value and the affidavit submitted by
                                                                           Citibank. The applicant invokes in that regard a violation of
The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied upon              Article 28 of Council Regulation 2026/97 (2), Articles 12 and
in Case T-381/03 IZAR.                                                     22 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
                                                                           Measures, the principle of proportionality and a manifest error
                                                                           of assessment.
In particular, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 88,
296 and 298 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as, since the Kingdom
of Spain had previously and expressly invoked the exception
provided for in Article 296(1)(b) of the Treaty, the Commission            The applicant furthermore submits that the findings of the
had power to initiate not the procedure under Article 88(2)                defendant that several specific measures conferred a benefit on
but only certain of the specific procedures under Article 298.             the applicant infringe Article 2 of Regulation 2026/97,
                                                                           Article 1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
                                                                           Countervailing Measures and amount to a manifest error of
                                                                           assessment of the relevant facts.
                                                                           The applicant also claims that the findings that the KDB
                                                                           debenture programme (3) was specific to the applicant infringe
Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semicon-                       Article 3 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 1.2 and 2 of the
  ductor Inc. against the Council of the European Union                    WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
                                                                           and amount to a manifest error of assessment of the relevant
                                                                           facts.
                         (Case T-383/03)
                          (2004/C 21/87)
                                                                           The applicant continues by submitting that in calculating the
                                                                           amount of the benefit of several specific measures, the
                                                                           defendant infringed Articles 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation
                                                                           2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of the amount of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings, Articles 14, 22
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                 and annex I(j) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Communities on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor                     Countervailing Measures. In this respect, the applicant also
Inc., Kyoungi-Do, Korea represented by Marco Bronckers, Yves               claims that the defendant committed a manifest error of
Van Gerven, Axel Gutermuth and Axel Desmedt lawyers with                   assessment and infringed Article 253 EC.
an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant also contests the defendant’s findings that
                                                                           subsidised imports from the Republic of Korea caused material
                                                                           injury to the Community’s industry of DRAM producers.
—     declare the Definitive Regulation annulled in its entirety,          According to the applicant, these findings infringe Articles 1,
      or at least partially, in so far as it concerns imports into         8, 11 and 15 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 15, 19 and 22
      the European Community of products manufactured by                   of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
      Hynix Semiconductor Inc.;                                            Measures and amount to manifest errors of assessment. The
                                                                           applicant also claims that the defendant committed a violation
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.               of Article 253 EC in this regard.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/44                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
Finally, the applicant submits that in calculating the                      Pleas in law and main arguments
countervailing duty, the defendant infringed Articles 5 and 7
of Regulation 2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of
the amount of the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings,               Applicant for regis-         Europortal Italia SpA, succeeded
Articles 14 and 19 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and                    tration of the Com-          by the applicant.
Countervailing Measures, and committed a manifest error of                  munity trade mark:
assessment.
                                                                            Community trade mark         Word mark ‘Jumpy’ — regis-
                                                                            sought:                      tration application No 1.332.006,
(1) OJ L 212 of 22 August 2003, p. 1.                                                                    registration sought in respect of a
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on                                              number of goods in Classes 9 and
    protection against subsidized imports from countries not mem-
    bers of the European Community (OJ L 288, p. 1).
                                                                                16.
(3) See recital 48 and following of the contested decision.
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Microarea SpA.
                                                                            sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                            sition proceedings:
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        Italian word mark ‘Jump’ for
                                                                            opposition:                  goods in Classes 9 and 16.
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition upheld and appli-
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive                       sition Division:             cation rejected.
Italiane — RTI against the Office for Harmonisation in
  the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                            Appeal:
                           (Case T-384/03)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation No 40/94 (‘likeli-
                            (2004/C 21/88)                                                               hood of confusion’).
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive Italiane — RTI, rep-                    Action brought on 25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc
resented by Giorgio Floridia and Raffaella Floridia, lawyers.               against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Microarea SpA was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.                                                                                (Case T-387/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                          (2004/C 21/89)
—     annul the decision of 11 September 2003 of the First
      Board of Appeal; or                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
—     in the alternative, interpret the decision of the Opposition
      Division No 2637/2002 of 30 August 2002 on Oppo-
      sition No B321994 to the effect that it does not preclude             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the valid registration of the trade mark ‘Jumpy’ to                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      distinguish it from the similarly-named Internet portal;              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc., Beverley, Massachu-
—     make an order pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of               setts, USA, represented by Dr Michael Edenborough, Barrister,
      Procedure requiring the defendant, as the unsuccessful                Mr Cerryg Jones, Ms Alexandra Brodie and Ms Carina Loweth
      party, to pay the costs.                                              Solicitors.


title: Case C-71/15 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 6 January 2015 in Case T-479/14 Kendrion v European Union

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/20

      Appeal brought on 17 February 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 6 January 2015 in Case T-479/14 Kendrion v European Union

      (Case C-71/15 P)
      (2015/C 107/29)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Appellant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A.V. Placco and E. Beysen, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: Kendrion NV

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 6 January 2015 in Case T-479/14 Kendrion v European Union;

                  —

                  grant the form of order sought by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the CJEU’) in its application made to the General Court pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of that Court, and accordingly;

                  —

                  primarily, delivering final judgment in the case, declare Kendrion NV’s action for damages to be inadmissible on the ground that it is brought against the CJEU (as the representative of the European Union);

                  —

                  in the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice should take the view that the fact that that action is brought against the CJEU and not against the Commission (as the representative of the European Union) has no bearing on its admissibility but that the General Court, in its decision on the procedural issue raised before it by the CJEU, should have ordered that the CJEU be replaced by the Commission as defendant, refer the case back to the General Court to enable it to give judgment on Kendrion’s action for damages in the light of the legal assessment of the Court of Justice;

                  —

                  order Kendrion NV to pay the costs incurred by the CJEU in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      By order of 6 January 2015, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the application lodged by the CJEU, pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in Case T-479/14 Kendrion v Court of Justice. The application of that institution sought, primarily, a declaration of inadmissibility in respect of Kendrion NV’s action, which had been served on the CJEU as defendant, by which that company sought to engage the non-contractual liability of the European Union in order to obtain compensation for the damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the General Court’s failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time in Case T-54/06 Kendrion v Commission. In the alternative, the CJEU raised in that application a procedural issue by which it requested the General Court to order that it be replaced by the European Commission (‘Commission’) as defendant. In that context, the CJEU argued that Kendrion ought to have brought its action against the European Union, represented not by the CJEU but by the Commission. The General Court did not follow the CJEU on that point in the abovementioned order.
      The CJEU now brings an appeal before the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, by which it seeks to have that order set aside. In support of that appeal, the CJEU claims that the rules on representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies have not been observed and that the obligation to state reasons has not been complied with.
      In the context of the
            first ground of appeal, concerning non-observance of the rules on the representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies
         , the CJEU submits that, in view of the fact that there is no express rule governing representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies in actions brought pursuant to Article 268 TFEU with a view to engaging the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the rules governing such representation must be derived from the general principles applicable to the exercise of the judicial function, in particular the principle of the sound administration of justice and the principles relating to judicial independence and impartiality.
      That first ground of appeal of the CJEU comprises two parts, that is to say, non-observance of the requirements of the principle of the sound administration of justice and non-observance of the requirements of the principles of judicial independence and impartiality.
      In the context of the first ground of appeal, the CJEU submits that the General Court’s finding that it is for the CJEU to represent the European Union in the context of the abovementioned action for damages is clearly based on the case-law originating in the judgment in Werhahn Hansamühle and Others v Council and Commission (63/72 to 69/72, EU:C:1973:121; ‘Werhahn and Others’). The solution adopted in that case-law implies that, where the liability of the Community (now the European Union) is engaged by reason of the conduct of one of its institutions, it should be represented before the EU Courts by the institution or institutions against which the matter giving rise to liability is alleged. The CJEU takes the view that that solution should not be applied to the present case because it would, by reason of several factors, lead to a situation that would appear to be at variance with the interest of a sound administration of justice, which, according to the express wording of Werhahn and Others, is the rationale for that solution. In that context, the CJEU also raises, as a subsidiary argument, a lack of regard for the scope of the first paragraph of Article 317 TFEU and Article 53(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1), on the basis of which the General Court ought to have recognised the principle that compensation such as that claimed in the present case must come from that part of the EU budget which relates to the Commission.
      In the context of the second part of the first ground of appeal, the CJEU, relying in this regard on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 July 2008 in Mihalkov v Bulgaria (application no 67719/01), argues that the General Court failed to take account of the requirements of judicial independence and impartiality when it ruled that the CJEU had to represent the European Union in Kendrion’s action for damages. In view of the fact that, in the present case, first, the matter allegedly giving rise to liability came about in the exercise of judicial functions by a formation of a judicial body and, secondly, the formation that will have to take cognisance of the case (i) belongs to the same judicial body (the General Court) as the formation of the judicial body being held responsible for the matter giving rise to liability and (ii) is an integral part of the defendant party in this case (the CJEU), with which the judges of that formation are professionally affiliated, the abovementioned requirements are compromised, a fortiori where, as the General Court has held, damages such as those here being claimed must come from that part of the budget which relates to the CJEU.
      Accordingly, the CJEU argues in its
            second ground of appeal
          that, in the contested order, there has been a
            failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons
         , since that order contains no specific rebuttal of the argument concerning the scope of the judgment in Kendrion v Commission (C-50/12 P, EU:C:2013:771) that the CJEU had raised before the General Court.

         (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).


title: Case C-175/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 6 April 2017 — X, other party: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 6 April 2017 — X, other party: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen
   (Case C-175/17)
   (2017/C 178/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98; ‘the Return Directive’), read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that under EU law, if national law makes provision to that effect, in proceedings challenging a decision which includes a return decision within the meaning of Article 3(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC, the legal remedy of an appeal has automatic suspensory effect where the third-country national claims that enforcement of the return decision would result in a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement? In other words, in such a case, should the expulsion of the third-country national concerned be suspended during the period for lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal has been lodged, until a decision has been delivered on that appeal, without the third-country national concerned being required to submit a separate request to that effect?

               2.

               Must Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13; ‘the Procedures Directive’), read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, under EU law, if national law makes provision to that effect, in proceedings relating to the rejection of an application for asylum within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2005/85/EC, the legal remedy of an appeal has automatic suspensory effect? In other words, in such a case, should the expulsion of the asylum-seeker concerned be suspended during the period for lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal has been lodged, until a decision has been delivered on that appeal, without the asylum-seeker concerned being required to submit a separate request to that effect?


title: Case T-471/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2014  — Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Book publishing market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets — Decision approving the purchaser of the assets sold — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Breach of Article 266 TFEU — Failure to comply with the commitments imposed by the conditional clearance decision — Distinction between conditions and obligations — Principle of non-retroactivity — Assessment of the prospective purchaser — Purchaser’s independence from the seller — Misuse of power — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2014 — Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission
   (Case T-471/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Concentrations - Book publishing market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Decision approving the purchaser of the assets sold - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Breach of Article 266 TFEU - Failure to comply with the commitments imposed by the conditional clearance decision - Distinction between conditions and obligations - Principle of non-retroactivity - Assessment of the prospective purchaser - Purchaser’s independence from the seller - Misuse of power - Obligation to state reasons))
   2014/C 372/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented initially by O. Fréget, M. Struys and L. Eskenazi, then by O. Fréget, L. Eskenazi and D. Béranger and lastly by O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, O. Beynet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Lagardère SCA (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure, J.-B. Pinçon and L. Bary, lawyers); and Wendel (Paris) (represented by: M. Trabucchi, F. Gordon and A. Gosset-Grainville, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 3503 of 13 May 2011, adopted in Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP following the judgment of 13 September 2010 in Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission (T-452/04, ECR, EU:T:2010:385), by which the Commission once again approved Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold pursuant to the commitments attached to the Commission’s decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the concentration Lagardère/Natexis/VUP.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.


title: Case T-335/12: Action brought on 19 July 2012 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/35

         Action brought on 19 July 2012 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-335/12)
   2012/C 287/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: T&L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Commission and the European Union, represented by the European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application for annulment under Article 263(4) TFEU and/or plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU against Regulation 367/2012, Regulation 397/2012, Regulation 356/2012, Regulation 382/2012, Regulation 444/2011 and Regulation 485/2012 admissible and well founded;

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 367/2012 of 27 April 2012 laying down necessary measures as regards the release of additional quantities of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012 (OJ 2012 L 116, p. 12);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/2012 of 8 May 2012 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available additional quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012 (OJ 2012 L 123, p. 35);

               —

               Annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2011 L 318, p. 4), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 356/2012, as regards the periods during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second and subsequent partial invitations to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar at a reduced customs duty (OJ 2012 L 113, p. 4);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 382/2012 of 3 May 2012 on the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the fifth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2012 L 119, p. 41);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2012 of 24 May 2012 on the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the sixth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2012 L 135, p. 61);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2012 of 7 June 2012 on the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the seventh partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2012 L 148, p. 24);

               —

               In the alternative, (i) declare the plea of illegality against Articles 186(a) and 187 of Regulation 1234/2007 (1) admissible and well founded and declare those provisions illegal, as well as annul the contested regulations, which are directly or indirectly based on those provisions; and (ii) declare the plea of illegality against Regulation 367/2012 and Regulation 1239/2011, as amended by Regulation 356/2012, admissible and well founded;

               —

               Condemn the EU as represented by the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission’s breach of its legal obligations and to set the amount of this compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants during the period 30 January 2012 to 24 June 2012 at 75 051 236 EUR plus any ongoing losses suffered by the applicants after that date or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be suffered by the applicants as further established by them in the course of this procedure especially to take due account of future damage;

               —

               Order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European Central bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by your Court, be paid on the amount payable as from the date of your Court’s judgement until actual payment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination as, on the one hand, Regulation 367/2012 provides for a fixed, generally applicable 211 EUR per tonne surplus levy — i.e. less than half to the usual 500 EUR per tonne — applying to a specific quantity (250 000 tonnes) of sugar, divided equally only between beet processors applicants. On the other hand, Regulation 1239/2011 as amended by Regulation 356/2012, provides for an unknown, unpredictable customs duty, applicable only to auction winners (who can be cane refiners, beet processors, or any other third party) and for an unspecified total amount. The customs duty was most recently fixed at 312,60 EUR per tonne, i.e. nearly 50 % higher than the surplus levy for beet processors. The contrast between the two measures could not be starker. Indeed, every element of the measures discriminates against the cane sugar refiners and in favour of beet processors.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the Regulation 1234/2007 and absence of an appropriate legal basis as, with regard to Regulation 367/2012, the Commission has no power whatsoever to increase quotas and is on the contrary required to impose high, dissuasive levies on the release of out-of-quota sugar on the EU market. As regards the tax auctions, the Commission clearly has no mandate or power to adopt this kind of measure, which was never envisaged in the basic legislation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty, as the Commission created a system whereby customs duties are not predictable and fixed through the application of consistent, objective criteria, but are rather determined by subjective willingness to pay (moreover of actors that are subject to very different pressures and incentives in this regard) with no actual link with the actual products being imported.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality in so far as the Commission could easily have adopted less restrictive measures to tackle the supply shortage, which would have not been taken exclusively to the detriment of importing refiners.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of legitimate expectations, as the applicants were legitimately led to expect that the Commission would use the tools available in Regulation 1234/2007 to restore the availability of supply of raw cane sugar for refining. The applicants were also legitimately led to expect that the Commission would preserve the balance between importing refiners and domestic sugar producers.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of diligence, care and good administration, as the actions taken by the Commission were manifestly inappropriate in light of the supply shortage. The Commission should have eased import restrictions for cane refiners. Instead, the Commission increased domestic production and subjected access to extra imports to punitive and unpredictable taxes.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 39 TFEU since the Commission failed to achieve two of the objectives set out in this Treaty provision.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of Comission Regulation 1006/2011 (2), as the duties applied to white sugar are indeed only fractionally higher than for raw sugar, the difference being around 30 EUR per tonne. This contrasts sharply with the 80 EUR difference between the standard import duty for refined sugar (419 EUR) and raw sugar for refining (339 EUR) which are set out in Comission Regulation 1006/2011.

         In addition, in support of the action for damages, the applicants allege that the Commission exceeded gravely and manifestly the margin of discretion conferred to it by the Regulation 1234/2007, through its passivity and inappropriateness of action. Furthermore, the Commission failure to adopt adequate measures constitutes a manifest infringement of a rule of law ‘intended to confer rights on individuals’. The Commission violated in particular the EU general principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, proportionality, legitimate expectations and the duty of diligence, care and good administration.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2011 L 282, p. 1).


title: Case C-118/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria)) — Eon Aset Menidjmunt v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168 and 176 — Right of deduction — Condition relating to use of goods and services for the purposes of taxed transactions — Origin of the right to deduct — Motor vehicle leasing contract — Financial leasing contract — Vehicle used by employer to transport free of charge an employee between his home and his workplace)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria)) — Eon Aset Menidjmunt v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-118/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168 and 176 - Right of deduction - Condition relating to use of goods and services for the purposes of taxed transactions - Origin of the right to deduct - Motor vehicle leasing contract - Financial leasing contract - Vehicle used by employer to transport free of charge an employee between his home and his workplace)
   2012/C 98/12
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eon Aset Menidjmunt

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Varna — Interpretation of Articles 168, 173 and 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Restrictions on the right to deduct VAT — National legislation laying down, as a mandatory condition for recognition of the right to deduct VAT, that goods or services be used for the purposes of an independent economic activity and not providing for a rectification method for cases in which the goods or services are not initially included in the turnover but, subsequent to their acquisition, they are used for the purposes of taxable supplies

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           a leased motor vehicle is to be regarded as used for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxed transactions if there is a direct and immediate link between the use of that vehicle and the taxable person’s economic activity and the time when the right to deduct arises and when it is necessary to take into account the existence of such a link is on the expiry of the period to which each payment relates;

                           —

                           a motor vehicle leased under a financial leasing contract and placed in the category of capital goods is to be regarded as used for the purposes of taxed transactions if the taxable person acting as such acquires that vehicle and allocates it entirely to the assets of his undertaking, input value added tax payable being fully and immediately deductible, and any use of that vehicle for the taxable person’s private purposes or for those of his staff or for purposes other than those of his undertaking being treated as a supply of services carried out for consideration.

               2.

               Articles 168 and 176 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the exclusion from the right to deduct of goods and services intended to be supplied free of charge or for activities outside the scope of the taxable person’s economic activity, provided that goods categorised as capital goods are not allocated to the assets of the undertaking.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-158/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 March 2016 by Inge Barnett, Suzanne Ditlevsen, Annie Madsen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/44

         Appeal brought on 14 March 2016 by Inge Barnett, Suzanne Ditlevsen, Annie Madsen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC

   (Case T-158/16 P)
   (2016/C 191/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Suzanne Ditlevsen (Copenhagen, Denmark), Annie Madsen (Frederiksberg, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC;

         giving judgment itself,

               —

               annul the decisions contained in the pension slips of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the applicants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014;

               —

               order the EESC to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-148/16 P, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission.


title: Case T-152/01: Action brought on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro against the European Central Bank

text:
29.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/11
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     assess the right of Fedon and order the Community to
      pay compensation of LIT 4 432 590 743 or such other                The applicant, a European Central Bank employee, is the father
      sum as the Court may consider reasonable, subject to the           of two sons. He applied for an education allowance in
      possibility of adjustment for the duration of the obligation       respect of his sons’ attendance at an international school. The
      to pay additional duties, plus interest at the Italian             defendant refused that application, referring to the fact that
      statutory rate from the time of actual payment by Fedon            the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for receiving the
      to the American customs administration of 95,4 % of the            allowance since he was not entitled to an expatriation allow-
      value of the goods (increased duties), until settlement,           ance of 16 %.
      plus interest for delay of 8%, in accordance with Com-
      munity case-law, in the event of delay in paying the sum           The applicant submits that the refusal to grant the education
      claimed;                                                           allowance is contrary to Treaty rights conferred on him and in
                                                                         particular infringes the duty owed by the defendant to have
—     order the Community to pay the costs.                              regard for his interests.
                                                                         He also submits that Article 19(i) of the Conditions of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Employment offends against the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                         The defendant has acknowledged in Article 9(c) of the
                                                                         Conditions of Employment that it is obliged to observe that
The applicants, which export spectacle cases to the United               principle. An education allowance under Article 19 of the
States, claim damages for loss following the adoption by the             Conditions of Employment is granted only to employees who
United States of certain retaliatory commercial measures                 already satisfy the conditions for the grant of an expatriation
affecting their industry.                                                allowance. Therefore, two categories of employees, namely
                                                                         employees who meet those conditions and employees who do
                                                                         not, are treated differently. The unequal treatment would be
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in              objectively justified only if the aim of the expatriation allow-
Case T-69/00 FIAM and FIAM Technologies v Council and                    ance were identical to that of the education allowance, which
Commission (1).                                                          is not the case. The aims of the allowances are fundamentally
                                                                         different, so that it is not justified to link the grant of an
                                                                         education allowance pursuant to Article 19(i) of the Conditions
(1) OJ C 135 of 13. 5. 2000, p. 30.                                      of Employment to the conditions for an expatriation allowance
                                                                         pursuant to Article 17.
Action brought on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro
              against the European Central Bank                          Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
                                                                         Moreno against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                         (Case T-152/01)
                                                                                (Case T-153/01)
                         (2001/C 275/24)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/25)
                   (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro, of Frankfurt am Main,               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by Dr Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia             European Communities on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Mittländer, Lawyers.                                                     Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                         sanden and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by the European Central Bank to
      refuse him an education allowance for his two sons;                —     annul the decision taken by the defendant to apply an
                                                                               age limit set at 65 years to freelance interpreters and
—     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.                        therefore to apply that age limit to her;


title: Case T-179/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/56

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission
   (Case T-179/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/67)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schmiedewerke Gröditz GmbH (Gröditz, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and G. Mathisen, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               3.

               Schmiedewerke Gröditz GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-325/00: Action brought on 18 October 2000 by Elke Sada against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.12.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/13
Action brought on 12 October 2000 by Chantal Borrem-                      The applicants complain that the Commission discriminated
ans and 17 others against Commission of the European                      against them by comparison with other agents of the EAC
                          Communities                                     who were established in 1982 and 1987. Moreover, they claim
                                                                          that the Commission had raised their legitimate expectations
                                                                          that they would form permanent part of the Communities’
                         (Case T-319/00)
                                                                          staff. By refusing to take account of the applicants’ legitimate
                                                                          aspirations, the Commission breached the principle of the
                         (2000/C 372/26)                                  protection of legitimate expectations.
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 October 2000 by Chantal                        Action brought on 18 October 2000 by Elke Sada against
Borremans and 17 others, residing in Belgium, represented by                     the Commission of the European Communities
Albert Evrard and Anne Colson, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                (Case T-325/00)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 372/27)
—      annul the decision to offer the applicants contracts as
       members of the temporary staff in permanent posts with
       effect from 1 January 2000 (Article 2(b) of the Conditions                           (Language of the case: German)
       of Employment of other servants of the European Com-
       munities);
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—      call on the Commission to take an appropriate decision             European Communities on 18 October 2000 by Elke Sada,
       which would give fair compensation to the officials                residing at Besozzo/VA, Italy, represented by Dr Hans-Josef
       affected by the disadvantage arising from the annulled             Rüber, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, Germany.
       decision;
—      order the Commission to pay 1 euro subject to increase             The applicant claims that the Court should:
       or reduction during the course of proceedings by way of
       compensation for the material damage suffered by the               —     declare that the defendant is required to pay to the
       applicants with the exception of Mr Arnalsteen, who                      applicant a monthly unemployment allowance under
       assesses his damage at 1 000 000;                                        Article 28a of the Conditions of Employment of other
                                                                                servants of the European Communities,
—      order the Commission to pay 1 euro subject to increase
                                                                          —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
       or reduction during the course of proceedings by way of
                                                                                pay the costs.
       compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
       all the applicants, subject to an order for it to pay
       1 000 000 BEF to Ms Borremans and Mr Arnalsteen;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—      order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                          The applicant was a member of the temporary staff at the Joint
                                                                          Research Centre, Ispra. She rejected an offer to renew her five-
                                                                          year term of employment for a further five years.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By the present action, she is objecting to the Commission
The applicants are former agents of the European Association              decision not to grant her any unemployment allowance or
for Cooperation (EAC). The object of that association governed            other social security benefits under Article 28a of the Con-
by Belgian law was the carrying out of various activities in the          ditions of Employment of other servants.
area of development policy on behalf of the Commission.
Following the cessation of activities of the EAC at the end of
1998, the applicants were integrated into the Commission’s                Contrary to the defendant’s contention, she is indeed to be
staff.                                                                    regarded as unemployed for the purpose of Article 28a. Her
                                                                          rejection of the renewal of the term of employment is not
                                                                          comparable to resignation. On the contrary, her fixed-term
By the present action, the applicants challenge the Com-                  employment came to an end in the usual way, which
mission’s decision to offer them contracts as members of the              substantiates the claim for an unemployment allowance.
temporary staff for a duration of two years, renewable for one
year, under Article 2(b) of the of the Conditions of Employment
of other servants of the European Communities.


title: Case C-326/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Articles of association of privatised undertakings — Criteria for the exercise of certain special powers held by the State)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-326/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Articles of association of privatised undertakings - Criteria for the exercise of certain special powers held by the State)
   2009/C 113/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Clause introduced into the statutes of certain privatised undertakings concerning the exercise of various special powers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting the provisions contained in Article 1(2) of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 10 June 2004 defining the criteria for the exercise of the special powers referred to in Article 2 of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted into law with amendments by Law No 474 of 30 July 1994 (decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, definizione dei criteri di esercizio dei poteri speciali, di cui all’art. 2 del decreto-legge 31 maggio 1994, n. 332, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 30 luglio 1994, n. 474), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations:

                           —

                           under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC, in so far as those provisions apply to the special powers provided by Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Decree-Law, as amended by Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2004) (legge No 350, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2004), and

                           —

                           under Article 43 EC, in so far as those provisions apply to the special power provided by Article 2(1)(c) of the Decree-Law;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-392/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — (Greece)) — Georgios Alevizos v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Freedom of movement for workers — Directive 83/183/EEC — Article 6 — Definitive import into one Member State of a private vehicle from another Member State — Member of the armed forces of one Member State posted temporarily to another Member State for official reasons — Concept of normal residence )

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — (Greece)) — Georgios Alevizos v Ipourgos Ikonomikon
   (Case C-392/05) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Directive 83/183/EEC - Article 6 - Definitive import into one Member State of a private vehicle from another Member State - Member of the armed forces of one Member State posted temporarily to another Member State for official reasons - Concept of ‘normal residence’)
   (2007/C 96/19)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georgios Alevizos

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64) — Scope of ‘normal residence ’— Civil servants and officers of the armed forces posted abroad on service
   Operative part of the judgment
   Excise duties such as those at issue in the main proceedings come within the scope of the tax exemption provided for in Article 1(1) of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals, as amended by Council Directive 89/604/EEC of 23 November 1989, where it is established — and that is something which it is for the national court to determine — that they are normally charged on the permanent importation by a private individual of a vehicle for personal use from another Member State. A special supplementary single payment registration tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings comes within Article 1(1) where it is established — and that is something which it is for the national court to determine — that it is linked to the actual importation of the vehicle.
   Article 6(1) of Directive 83/183 must be interpreted as meaning that an employee in the public service, the armed forces, the public security forces or the harbour police corps of a Member State, who stays for at least 185 days a year in another Member State with the members of his family in order to carry out an official task of a definite duration in that latter State, has, during the period of that task, his normal residence, within the meaning of Article 6(1), in that other Member State.
   If, at the conclusion of the national court's investigations, it is established that the taxes at issue in the main proceedings do not come within the scope of the tax exemption provided for by Article 1(1) of Directive 83/183, it will be for the national court, having regard to the requirements arising from Article 39 EC, to determine whether the national provisions governing those taxes are such as to ensure that a person who, in the context of a transfer of residence, imports a vehicle into his Member State of origin is not placed in a less favourable position in connection with those taxes than that of other persons living permanently in that Member State and, if so, whether such a difference in treatment is justified by objective considerations that are independent of the residence of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national law.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-237/04: Action brought on 14 June 2004 by Ultradent Products, Inc., and Michael J.S. Renouf against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/19

         Action brought on 14 June 2004 by Ultradent Products, Inc., and Michael J.S. Renouf against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-237/04)
   (2004/C 251/37)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, Utah, USA and Michael J. S. Renouf, Brussels, Belguim, represented by Mr S. Crosby and Mr C. Bryant, Solicitors.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 5 April 2004 to refuse to give access to the documents identified in the administrative procedure, following the applicants' three applications, all dated 27 October 2003, for access to documents connected to the classification of tooth-bleaching products;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 5 April 2004 to refuse to give access to the documents which must, given the circumstances, be presumed to exist;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants' costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By three letters dated 27 October 2003 the second applicant presented to the Commission three requests for access to documents connected to the question of whether tooth-bleaching products should be classified as cosmetic products or as medical devices. More particularly, the second applicant requested access to documents relating to a complaint made on behalf of the first applicant to the Commission contesting the classification of such products by the United Kingdom Authorities, to documents relating to the preparation of the answer by Commissioner Borino to a written question to the Commission on such products and finally to all documents of the Commission relating to the question of the classification of such products. At the same time the second applicant, who is a solicitor, declared in his application that he was acting on behalf of the first applicant.
   Confirmatory applications were filed on 16 December 2003. On 17 December 2003 the Commission replied to the initial applications and the applicants filed a further confirmatory application on 7 January 2004 which purported to withdraw the three previous confirmatory applications of 16 December. The Commission replied to the application of 7 January 2004 by a letter dated 5 April 2004. Enclosed with this letter were a number of documents.
   The applicants contend that the administrative procedure revealed that, apart from the documents disclosed to the applicants by the letter of 5 April 2004, a number of documents on the matters in question certainly exist and other documents may also be presumed to exist. According to the applicants all these documents are within the scope of the initial application and within the possession of the Commission, but have not been disclosed to the applicants. On this basis the applicants consider the letter of 5 April 2004 as a decision to refuse access to all these documents, and request its annulment. In support of their application they invoke a violation of Article 8 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) Official Journal L 145, 31/05/2001 p. 43-48 and of this regulation in general. They further submit that the Commission failed to give reasons for not granting access to the documents that certainly exist, nor has it invoked any exceptions to the right of access in order to justify its refusal.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.


title: Case F-54/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014  — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/28

         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-54/14)
   2014/C 388/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Bernard, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of legal advisor to the European Parliament.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision to appoint another person as legal advisor;

               —

               fix, as appropriate, on equitable principles, an amount of damages to compensate the applicant for the various breaches of administrative duty noted;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-658/14: Action brought on 12 September 2014  — Jurašinović v Council

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/23

         Action brought on 12 September 2014 — Jurašinović v Council
   (Case T-658/14)
   2014/C 380/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: O. Pfligersdorffer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 8 July 2014 insofar as it limited the applicant’s access to the documents referred to in Annex 3 to that decision by invoking the protection of international relations and the protection of court proceedings and by redacting the requested documents on that ground;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant EUR 5  000 exclusive of tax, that is to say EUR 6  000 in total including all taxes, to cover procedural costs, with interest at the European Central Bank rate as at the date of registration of the application;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the protection of court proceedings laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), in so far as the Court had already held, in Jurašinović v Council (T-63/10, EU:T:2012:516) — in implementation of which the contested decision was adopted — that although that exception was applicable, it could not operate in the present case.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations laid down in the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that the measure or the documents at issue concerned information issued by the European Union and not from the United Nations system, with the result that the flow of information from that organisation would not be affected.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the overriding public interest, which allows, under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, derogation from the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, in that, first, the proceedings to which the documents relate are now definitively completed and, secondly, the Republic of Croatia is now a Member State of the European Union.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).