title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2002 in Case T-113/00: DuPont Teĳin Films Luxembourg SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Generalised Tariff Preference System (GSP) — Refusal of request to open investigation — Challengeable act — Misinterpretation of Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 — Failure to state reasons)

text:
C 289/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23.11.2002
Solicitor, and B. Van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyer, with an                  mantopoulos, J. J. Gutiérrez Gisbert and J. Branton, lawyers,
address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European                with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
Union (Agents: J. Carbery, M. Sims and J. Monteiro and                      European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. M. Berrisch),
F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by Commission of the                     supported by Commission of the European Communities
European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver, T. Christoforou and                (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany): Application for annul-
K. Fitch), by Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch, T. Pynnä            ment of the second paragraph of Article 3 of Council
and E. Bygglin), by Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and                 Regulation (EC) No 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating
L. Nordling), and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and                    the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill): Application for annul-                large aluminium electrolytic capacitors originating in Japan,
ment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December                   the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2000 L 22, p. 1), the
1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of                Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives              sition), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung,
in feedingstuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4), the Court of First                  P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; F. Erlbacher, Legal Secretary,           2002, in which it has ruled:
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the action;
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                defendant;
2.     Orders Alpharma to bear its own costs and to pay those
       incurred by the Council, including those relating to the
       proceedings for interim relief;                                      3.     Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
3.     Orders the Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
       of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
       Northern Ireland to bear their own costs, both in the main
       proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.
( 1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 September 2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            in Case T-113/00: DuPont Teijin Films Luxembourg SA
                                                                            and Others v Commission of the European Communi-
                       of 12 September 2002                                                                  ties ( 1)
in Case T-89/00: Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH                        (Action for annulment — Generalised Tariff Preference
              v Council of the European Union (1)                           System (GSP) — Refusal of request to open investigation —
                                                                            Challengeable act — Misinterpretation of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 2820/98 — Failure to state reasons)
(Anti-dumping — Termination of proceedings — Principle
of equal treatment — Initial investigation in one procedure
coinciding with a review in another procedure —                                                       (2002/C 289/43)
Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Regulation
    terminating anti-dumping procedures — Retroactivity)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2002/C 289/42)
                    (Language of the case: English)                         In Case T-113/00, DuPont Teijin Films Luxembourg SA,
                                                                            established in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), Mitsubishi Polyester
                                                                            Film GmbH, established in Wiesbaden (Germany), Toray
                                                                            Plastics Europe SA, established in Saint-Maurice-de-Beynost
In Case T-89/00, Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH,                       (France), represented by I. Forrester QC and J. Killick, Barrister,
established in Nuremberg (Germany), represented by K. Ada-                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
 ---pagebreak--- 23.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 289/23
the European Communities (Agents: C. Bury and R. Vidal):                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
28 February 2000 concerning the applicants’ request for the
opening of an investigation with a view to withdrawal of the                                          of 18 September 2002
benefit of the general tariff preference system in respect of
polyethylene terephthalate film originating in India, the Court               in Case T-29/01: Carlos Puente Martín v Commission of
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke,                                      the European Communities (1)
President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2002, in
which it:                                                                     (Officials — Reinstatement — Installation allowance —
                                                                              Further payment of invalidity pension — Resettlement
                                                                                allowance — Conditions)
1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 28 February 2000;
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those                                       (2002/C 289/45)
       of the applicants.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                              In Case T-29/01: Carlos Puente Martín, an official of the
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities, residing in Madrid,
                                                                              represented by O. González Correas, lawyer, against Com-
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,
                                                                              J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) — application for
                                                                              annulment of the Commission’s decision of 22 February 2000
                       of 11 September 2002                                   refusing to grant to the applicant the full installation allowance
                                                                              and resettlement allowance following his installation in Brus-
in Case T-127/00: Michael Nevin v Commission of the                           sels and resettlement in Madrid -the Court of First Instance
                     European Communities ( 1)                                (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili
                                                                              and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio González,
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of                      Administrator, gave a judgment on 18 September 2002, in
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for an                         which it:
                     international organisation)
                                                                              1.     Held that there was no need to adjudicate on the claim that the
                            (2002/C 289/44)                                          Court of First Instance should accept Spanish as the language
                                                                                of the case;
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              2.     Annulled the Commission’s decision of 22 February 2000 to
                                                                                the extent that it refused to grant the applicant the full
In Case T-127/00: Michael Nevin, an official of the Com-                             installation allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII
mission of the European Communities, residing in Tervuren                            to the Staff Regulations and the full resettlement allowance
(Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for                     provided for in Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                            Regulations;
Communities (Agents: J. Currall, D. Waelbroeck and A. Vro-
ninks) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                        3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant the allowances,
decision of 9 April 1999 refusing to grant the applicant the                         plus default interest from the respective dates on which it became
expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII                        due on those allowances in accordance with Annex VII to the
to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communi-                       Staff Regulations to the date of payment, after deduction of the
ties and, secondly a claim for payment of that allowance                             sums already paid to the applicant as installation allowance;
together with default interest - the Court of First Instance                         the annual rate of that default interest is to be calculated on the
(Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili                        basis of the rate fixed by the Governing Council of the European
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the                         Central Bank for principal refinancing operations and applicable
Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 September 2002, in which                            during the period in question, plus two points;
it:
                                                                              4.     Dismissed the remainder of the application;
1.     dismisses the application.
                                                                              5.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21 April 2001.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case C-532/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon, Nikolaos Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE, Aikaterini Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai Synergates AE Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A. Pantazis — Pan. Kyriopoulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE, Nikolaos Sideris (Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Carrying out of a project in respect of the cadastre, town plan and implementing measure for a residential area — Criteria which may be accepted as criteria for qualitative selection or award criteria — Economically most advantageous tender — Compliance with the award criteria set out in the contract documents or contract notice — Subsequent determination of weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice — Principle of equal treatment of economic operators and obligation of transparency)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon, Nikolaos Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE, Aikaterini Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai Synergates AE Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A. Pantazis — Pan. Kyriopoulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE, Nikolaos Sideris
   (Case C-532/06) (1)

   (Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - Carrying out of a project in respect of the cadastre, town plan and implementing measure for a residential area - Criteria which may be accepted as ‘criteria for qualitative selection’ or ‘award criteria’ - Economically most advantageous tender - Compliance with the award criteria set out in the contract documents or contract notice - Subsequent determination of weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice - Principle of equal treatment of economic operators and obligation of transparency)
   (2008/C 64/15)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon, Nikolaos Vlachopoulos

      Defendants: Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE, Aikaterini Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai Synergates AE Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A. Pantazis — Pan. Kyriopoulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE, Nikolaos Sideris
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 36 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Criteria for awarding contract — Subsequent fixing of the specific weighting for each criterion when the award procedure was already under way
   Operative part of the judgment
   Read in the light of the principle of equal treatment of economic operators and the ensuing obligation of transparency, Article 36(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, precludes the contracting authority in a tendering procedure from stipulating at a later date the weighting factors and sub-criteria to be applied to the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber of the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze, by order of that court of 18 October 1996 in the case of Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven SpA v. Direzione Regionale delle Entrate (Florence Office, Tuscany) (Case C-4/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber                   in any way constitute a State aid incompatible with the
of the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze, by                   common market, because, contrary to the Commission's
order of that court of 18 October 1996 in the case of                      assertions, the State has not made any grant of aid, either
Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven SpA v. Direzione Regiona                    directly or indirectly, which distorts or threatens to distort
            le delle Entrate (Florence Office, Tuscany)                    competition by affecting trade.
                             (Case C-4/97)
                               ( 97/C 94/09 )                              None of the arguments of the Commission, which alleges
                                                                           a use of State resources which distorts competition and
                                                                           affects trade, hits the mark; the provision adopted, as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     temporary measure, to buffer the increase in the price of
European Communities by an order of the Fourth                             diesel fuel in Italy, in favour both of Italian hauliers
Chamber of the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Fi
                                                                           carrying goods by road for hire or reward and also,
renze ( Provincial Tax Court, Florence ) of 18 October                     similarly, for non-Italian Community hauliers actually hit
1996, which was received at the Court Registry on                          by the higher tax charged on diesel fuel in Italy, is not
9 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    open to challenge under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty.
Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven SpA v. Direzione Regiona                    Consequently, the Commission's decision must be
le delle Entrate — Toscana, Sezione di Firenze (Tuscany                    annulled .
Regional Tax Directorate, Florence Office ), on the
following question:
                                                                           In the alternative, with reference to the obligation to
Is a statutory tax on the net assets of companies with                     recover sums laid down in Article 2 of the contested
share capital which has effects economically equivalent to                 decision, the Italian Government cannot but point out that
those of an indirect tax on capital contributions                          such recovery is absolutely impossible . It is impossible for
compatible with Community law and in particular with                       two sets of reasons: first of all, because asking the hauliers
Directive 69/335/EEC H ?                                                   to repay those sums would cause an uprising that would
                                                                           trigger off a social conflict from which the State could
( 1 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II ), p. 412.        only emerge as the loser; and second, because the
                                                                           operations which would be technically necessary to
                                                                           recover those sums would run into problems which may
                                                                           reasonably be considered insuperable, given the huge
                                                                           number of persons concerned and the division of the
                                                                           credit between different taxes and rates of taxes .
Action brought on 10 January 1997 by the Italian
Republic against the Commission of the European                            Consequently, even if the application has to be dismissed
                              Communities                                  in so far as it concerns Article 1 of the contested decision
                             ( Case C-6/97)                                relating to the compatibility of the system in question with
                                                                           Article 92 of the Treaty, the application, without prejudice
                               ( 97/C 94/10                                to the Italian Government's undertaking not to repropose
                                                                           or continue the system in dispute, should be upheld and
An action against the Commission of the European                           by annulment of the contested decision in so far as it
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                     orders recovery of the credit granted.
the European Communities on 10 January 1997 by the
Italian Republic, represented by Professor Umberto
Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Oscar Fiumara, Avvo
cato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-Adelaide .
                                                                           Action brought on 15 January 1997 by the Commission of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-8/97
— principally, annul the decision of the Commission of
      the European Communities of 22 October 1996 C(96 )                                             97/C 94/11 )
       3078 final in its entirety,
— in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it                  An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
       imposes the obligation to recover the aid together with             before the Court of Justice on 15 January 1997 by the
       interest,                                                           Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                           by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser to the
— in either case, order the Commission to pay the costs.                   Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                           at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
As regards the full compatibility with the Treaty of the                   The applicant claims that the Court should declare that,
system introduced in Italy for the years in question, the                  by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate
Italian Government claims that the system itself does not                  to the Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2004 in Case C-150/03 P: Chantal Hectors v European Parliament (Appeal — Officials — Temporary staff in the European Parliament's political groups — Recruitment — Rejection of candidature — Grounds — Requirement of a statement of specific reasons)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 23 September 2004
   in Case C-150/03 P: Chantal Hectors v European Parliament (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Temporary staff in the European Parliament's political groups - Recruitment - Rejection of candidature - Grounds - Requirement of a statement of specific reasons)
   (2004/C 284/07)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-150/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged at the Court on 31 March 2003, by Chantal Hectors, residing at Mont-sur-Rolle (Switzerland), (represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levis, avocats), the other party to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J.F. de Wachter) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of 23 January 2003 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-181/01 Hectors v Parliament;

               2.

               Annuls the decisions of the authority competent to conclude contracts of employment appointing Mr B to the post of Dutch-language administrator in the European People's Party (Christian-Democrats) and European Democrats Group of the European Parliament and rejecting Ms Hectors' candidature for that post, as well as the decision rejecting her complaint;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               4.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the appeal and, in addition to its own costs, half of Ms Hectors' costs before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10 May 2003.


title: Case T-25/14: Action brought on 9 January 2014 — Spain v Commission

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/20

         Action brought on 9 January 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-25/14)
   2014/C 61/36
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2013) 7095 of 29 October 2013 on the compliance of 2014 unit rates for charging zones under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, in so far as it sets Spain’s unit rate at EUR 71.69 (Continental Spain) and EUR 58.36 (Spain, Canary Islands); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant contests the Commission Decision of 29 October 2013 on the compliance of 2014 unit rates for charging zones under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, in so far as it sets Spain’s unit rate at EUR 71.69 (Continental Spain) and EUR 58.36 (Spain, Canary Islands).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Breach of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 of 16 December 2010, read in conjunction with Article 11a of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services, since, in accordance with those provisions, the service providers are not required to pay, during the first reference period (2012-2014), the difference between the actual number of service units and the number of service units forecast where this does not exceed +/-2 %, in the case of Member States with national regulations in existence before 8 July 2010 that establish a reduction on the unit rate going beyond the European Union-wide targets.

               2.

               Breach of the principle of the hierarchy of norms, since a decision cannot amend a European Union Regulation; nor can it decide that a risk sharing mechanism ‘appl[ies] already’ with effect from a 0 % difference instead of with effect from a 2 % difference, when the relevant regulation has made no express provision to that effect.

               3.

               Abuse of procedure, since, in establishing ex novo a risk sharing criterion in the charging scheme, the Commission did not follow the procedure established in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky, referred to in Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky. According to the applicant, those provisions provide that the Commission is to adopt implementing rules for the purpose of establishing that charging scheme, assisted by the Single Sky Committee and, moreover, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers.
               In the alternative, the applicant also invokes a breach of the obligation to state reasons, and of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 since, before taking its decision, the Commission did not consult the Single Sky Committee concerning whether or not Spain’s position was consistent with the principles and rules of the charging scheme.


title: Case C-72/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München, Germany) — Hausgemeinschaft Jörg und Stefanie Wollny v Finanzamt Landshut (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(c) — Use of property forming part of the assets of a business for private purposes by a taxable person — Treatment of that use as a supply of services for consideration — Determination of the taxable amount — Definition of full cost to the taxable person of providing those services)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München, Germany) — Hausgemeinschaft Jörg und Stefanie Wollny v Finanzamt Landshut
   (Case C-72/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11A(1)(c) - Use of property forming part of the assets of a business for private purposes by a taxable person - Treatment of that use as a supply of services for consideration - Determination of the taxable amount - Definition of full cost to the taxable person of providing those services)
   (2006/C 281/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht München, Germany
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hausgemeinschaft Jörg und Stefanie Wollny

      Defendant: Finanzamt Landshut
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxable amount of supply of service consisting of use of part of a building forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of a business for the private use of the taxable person — Definition of ‘full cost’ to the taxable person
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the taxable amount for VAT in respect of the private use of part of a building treated by a taxable person as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of his business from being fixed at a portion of the acquisition or construction costs of the building, established in accordance with the length of the period for adjustment of deductions concerning VAT provided for in Article 20 of that directive.
   That taxable amount must include the costs of acquiring the land on which the building is constructed when that acquisition has been subject to VAT and the taxable person has deducted that tax.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-42/06: Order of the President of the Court of 21 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-42/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/69)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.03.2006.


title: Case T-675/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — K Chimica v ECHA (REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Determination of an enterprise’s size — Power of the ECHA)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — K Chimica v ECHA
   (Case T-675/13) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Determination of an enterprise’s size - Power of the ECHA))
   (2016/C 392/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: K Chimica Srl (Mirano, Italy) (represented by: R. Buizza and M. Rota, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by M. Heikkilä, A. Iber, E. Bigi and E. Maurage and J.-P. Trnka, and subsequently by Heikkilä, Bigi, Maurage and Trnka, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Decision SME(2013) 3665 of the ECHA of 15 October 2013, stating that the applicant failed to adduce the necessary evidence to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposes an administrative charge on it, second, requesting that the applicant be granted small enterprise status and that the corresponding fee be applied to it, and third, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the invoices issued by the ECHA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision SME(2013) 3665 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 15 October 2013;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the ECHA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by K Chimica Srl.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case C-210/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of 4 April 2000 in the case of Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
C 233/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                 2.    If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
hof order of that court of 30 March 2000 in the case                            can the first indent of the third subparagraph of Artic-
of Überseering BV against NCC Nordic Construction                              le 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 (1) be interpreted as
               Company Baumanagement GmbH                                       meaning that false information provided in good faith by
                                                                                the refund applicant on the basis of inaccurate data
                          (Case C-208/00)                                       supplied by the manufacturer constitutes in principle a
                                                                                case of force majeure where the applicant could not
                                                                                establish that it was false or could do so only by means
                          (2000/C 233/29)                                       of cheeks at the undertaking in which the goods were
                                                                                manufactured?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 30 March 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 25 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
the case of Überseering v NCC Nordic Construction Company
Baumanagement GmbH on the following questions:
1.    Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning
      that it is contrary to the right to freedom of establishment
      of companies if the legal capacity and capacity to bring
      legal proceedings of a company validly incorporated
      under the law of one Member State are determined
      according to the law of another State to which the
      company has moved its actual centre of administration
      and the law of that second State no longer allows the
      company to bring legal proceedings there in respect of
      claims based on contract?                                           Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
2.    If the Court’s answer to that question is yes:
      Does the right to freedom of establishment of companies                                      (Case C-216/00)
      (Articles 43 and 48 EC) mean that a company’s legal
      capacity and capacity to bring legal proceedings must be
      determined according to the law of the State where the
      company is incorporated?                                                                     (2000/C 233/31)
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 May
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                   expert on secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for
hof by order of 4 April 2000 in the case of Käserei                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt                        Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          Hamburg-Jonas
                          (Case C-210/00)                                 The Commission claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 233/30)
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
                                                                                Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
European Communities by order of 4 April 2000 by the                            comply fully with Article 3 of European Parliament
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                     and Council Directive 97/52/EC (1) of 13 October 1997
at the Court Registry on 26 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling                  amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and
in the case of Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co.                         93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures
KG v Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Hamburg-Jonas                      for the award of public service contracts, public supply
on the following questions:                                                     contracts and public works contracts respectively, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Is Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 valid in                  the EC Treaty;
      so far as it provides for a penalty even where, through no
      fault of his own, an exporter has applied for an export
      refund exceeding that applicable?                                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Volker und Markus Schecke GbR (C-92/09), Hartmut Eifert (C-93/09) v Land Hessen (Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Publication of information on beneficiaries of agricultural aid — Validity of the provisions of European Union law providing for that publication and laying down detailed rules for such publication — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7 and 8 — Directive 95/46/EC — Interpretation of Articles 18 and 20)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Volker und Markus Schecke GbR (C-92/09), Hartmut Eifert (C-93/09) v Land Hessen
   (Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09) (1)

   (Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Publication of information on beneficiaries of agricultural aid - Validity of the provisions of European Union law providing for that publication and laying down detailed rules for such publication - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 8 - Directive 95/46/EC - Interpretation of Articles 18 and 20)
   2011/C 13/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Volker und Markus Schecke GbR (C-92/09), Hartmut Eifert (C-93/09)

      Defendant: Land Hessen

      Joined party: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Re:

   Preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Validity of Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 28), and Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54) — Interpretation of Article 7, the second indent of Article 18(2), and Article 20 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Processing of personal data of beneficiaries of the European agricultural funds consisting in publishing the data on a website with a search tool — Validity in the light of the right to protection of personal data of the provisions of Community law prescribing that publication and laying down the detailed rules for publication — Conditions under which such publication may be carried out

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1437/2007 of 26 November 2007, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) are invalid in so far as, with regard to natural persons who are beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid, those provisions impose an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof.

               2.

               The invalidity of the provisions of European Union law mentioned in paragraph 1 of this operative part does not allow any action to be brought to challenge the effects of the publication of the lists of beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid carried out by the national authorities on the basis of those provisions during the period prior to the date on which the present judgment is delivered.

               3.

               The second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not placing the personal data protection official under an obligation to keep the register provided for by that provision before an operation for the processing of personal data, such as that resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1437/2007, and from Regulation No 259/2008, is carried out.

               4.

               Article 20 of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as not imposing an obligation on the Member States to make the publication of information resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1437/2007, and from Regulation No 259/2008 subject to the prior checks for which that Article 20 provides.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009

      OJ C 119, 16.5.2009


title: Case T-43/08: Order of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/57

         Order of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission
   (Case T-43/08) (1)

   2010/C 179/97

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-200/11: Action brought on 1 April 2011 — El-Materi v Council

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/23

         Action brought on 1 April 2011 — El-Materi v Council
   (Case T-200/11)
   2011/C 160/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fahd Mohamed Sakher Ben Mohamed El-Materi (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CSFP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40) and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 1), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the criterion for including the applicant in the Annex to Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP has not been fulfilled, as:

                           —

                           The only permissible basis for including the applicant in the said annex would be if he fulfilled the criterion set out in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1) namely if he were someone ‘responsible for the misappropriation of Tunisian State funds’ or someone associated with such a person, since, as recital 2 explains, such persons ‘are thus depriving the Tunisian people of the benefits of the sustainable development of their economy and society and undermining the development of democracy in the country’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, as:

                           —

                           The restrictive measures provide no procedure for communicating to the applicant the evidence on which the decision to freeze his assets was based, or for enabling him to comment meaningfully on that evidence;

                           —

                           The reasons given in the contested measures contain a general, unsupported, vague allegation of a judicial investigation;

                           —

                           The Council has not given sufficient information to enable the applicant effectively to make known his views in response, which does not permit a Court to assess whether the Council’s decision and assessment was well founded and based on compelling evidence.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion in the contested measures, in violation of its obligation to give a clear statement of the actual and specific reasons justifying its decision, including the specific individual reasons that led it to consider that the applicant was responsible for misappropriating Tunisian State funds.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s right to property and to conduct his business, as:

                           —

                           The asset freezing measures have a marked and long-lasting impact on his fundamental rights;

                           —

                           They are unjustified in their application to the applicant; and

                           —

                           The Council has not demonstrated that a total asset freeze is the least onerous means of ensuring such an objective, nor that the very significant harm to the applicant is justified and proportionate.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant, as no evaluation has apparently been carried out by the Council as regards the applicant or, if such assessment has been carried out, the Council erred in concluding that there was justification for including the applicant in the restrictive measures.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62).


title: Case C-378/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Communities' own resources — Payment in instalments by the debtor — Recovery)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-378/03) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Communities' own resources - Payment in instalments by the debtor - Recovery)
   (2006/C 294/04)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and C. Giolito, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits and A. Goldman, Agents and B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat,)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Eurotom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Eurotom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Late payment of the own resources where the debtor pays in stages — Import duties
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, because of the late payment of own resources in the case of receipt of payments in instalments from a debtor, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, which, with effect from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, which was identical in subject-matter;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 May 2000 in Case T-72/00 R: Steffen Skovmand v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Reassignment decision — Prima facie case — Urgency — None)

text:
12.8.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/29
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      Action brought on 23 May 2000 by Erpo Möbelwerk
A. Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I, v European Ombudsman (Agent:                  GmbH against the Office for Harmonization in the
G. Grill) and European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and                            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
A. Caiola) — application for a declaration that the Om-
budsman and, as the case may be, the Parliament unlawfully
failed to make a finding of maladministration on the part of                                      (Case T-138/00)
the Commission — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and
N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                                          (2000/C 233/55)
22 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.                                              (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          25 May 2000 by Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH, Ertingen, Federal
                                                                          Republic of Germany, represented by Stephan v. Petersdorff-
                                                                          Campen, Rechtsanwälte von Rospatt, von der Osten, Pross,
                                                                          Düsseldorf.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          of 24 May 2000
                                                                          —     annul decision R 392/1999-3 of the Third Board of
                                                                                Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
in Case T-72/00 R: Steffen Skovmand v Commission of                             Market of 23 March 2000 in so far as it dismisses the
                  the European Communities                                      appeal;
(Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Reassignment
      decision — Prima facie case — Urgency — None)                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 233/54)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-72/00 R: Steffen Skovmand, an official of the                   Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘DAS PRINZIP DER
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Buch-                                               BEQUEMLICHKEIT’ — applica-
arest (Romania), represented by G. Vandersanden, of the                                                 tion no. 806620
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck, v                 Goods or services:            Goods in classes 12 and 20 (inter
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-                                               alia vehicles and furniture)
sia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application, first, and by
way of interim measures, for access to the file of the steering
                                                                          Decision contested befo-      ner
committee of the Commission’s External Service or, at the very
                                                                          re the Board of Appeal:
least, for production by the Commission of all reports and
                                                                                Refusal to register by the Exami-
other documents concerning the applicant and, second, for
suspension of operation of the decision of that committee of              Pleas in law relied on:
28 January 2000 reassigning the applicant to the Directorate-                                           — Misapplication
                                                                                cle 7(1)(b) of     of
                                                                                Regulation
                                                                                Arti-
General for the Internal Market in Brussels — the President of                                               No 40/94
the Court of First Instance made an order on 24 May 2000,                                               — Misapplication        of   Arti-
the operative part of which is as follows:                                                                   cle 7(1)(c) of     Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-41/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Direct insurance other than life assurance — Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC — Mutual societies active in the supplementary sickness insurance market — Incorrect or incomplete transposition)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/21

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-41/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC - Mutual societies active in the supplementary sickness insurance market - Incorrect or incomplete transposition)
   2010/C 346/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member States to fulfil obligations — Incorrect and incomplete transposition of Articles 6, 8, 15, 16 and 17 of Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3) and of Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by its incorrect and incomplete transposition of First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2002/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 March 2002, and Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under, in particular, Articles 6, 8, 15, 16 and 17 of Directive 73/129, as amended by Directive 2002/13, and Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Directive 92/49;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-70/08: Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Axis AB v OHIM — Etra Investigación y Desarollo (ETRAX)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/31

         Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Axis AB v OHIM — Etra Investigación y Desarollo (ETRAX)
   (Case T-70/08)
   (2008/C 107/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Axis AB (Lund, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etra Investigación y Desarollo SA (Valencia, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 27 November 2007 in Case R 334/2007-2;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ETRAX’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42 — Application No 3 890 291

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Etra Investigacion y Desarollo SA

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative marks containing the word element ‘ETRA’ and the letters ‘I’ and ‘D’ joined by the sign ‘+’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 49 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (1) (‘CTMIR’) and Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (‘CTMR’).
   The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal was filed in accordance with Rule 49(1) CTMIR which states that the Board of Appeal must reject an appeal as inadmissible if it doesn't comply with Articles 57, 58 and 59 CTMR and Rule 48(1)(c) CTMIR. Further, the applicant contends that since the language deficiency was not remedied by the opponent before the expiry of the time-limit set to lodge an appeal, namely, 12 February 2007, the Board of Appeal allegedly infringed Rule 49(1) and (2) CTMIR.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-126/15: Action brought on 18 March 2015 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/34

         Action brought on 18 March 2015 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco)
   (Case T-126/15)
   (2015/C 155/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grup Supeco Maxor, SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Supeco’ — Application for registration No 10 884 741

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1112/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 4 December 2014 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1112/2014-5 in so far as in upholding in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark at issue, it overturned the Opposition Division’s decision upholding in part Opposition B 2 0 54  040 and refusing in part Community trade mark No 10 884 741 ‘Supeco’ (figurative); and

               —

               order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-269/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2015 — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad; other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2015 — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad; other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering
   (Case C-269/15)
   (2015/C 294/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

      Respondent: Willem Hoogstad

      Other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

      Question referred

   Must Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community be interpreted as precluding the levying of a contribution — such as the deduction made pursuant to Article 191(1)(7) of the Wet betreffende de verplichte verzekering voor geneeskundige verzorging en uitkeringen, gecoördineerd op 14 juli 1994 (Coordinated Law of 14 July 1994 on compulsory insurance for medical care and benefits) and the solidarity contribution payable pursuant to Article 68 of the Wet van 30 maart 1994 houdende sociale bepalingen (Law of 30 March 1994 concerning welfare provisions) — on benefits derived from Belgian supplementary pension schemes which are not legislation within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(j) of that regulation, in cases where those benefits are owed to an entitled recipient who does not reside in Belgium and who, in accordance with Article 13(2)(f) of that regulation, is subject to the social security legislation of the Member State in which he resides?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.


title: Case C-384/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd v Belgische Staat (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Article 63 TFEU — Tax legislation — Payment of dividends — Withholding tax — Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax — Different treatment of resident recipient companies and non-resident recipient companies)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/19

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-384/11) (1)

   (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Article 63 TFEU - Tax legislation - Payment of dividends - Withholding tax - Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax - Different treatment of resident recipient companies and non-resident recipient companies)
   2012/C 366/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Intervener: Syral Belgium NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 63 TFEU — Restrictions on the free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax on dividends — National rules providing for a 10 % withholding tax on dividends distributed by resident companies and on assimilated income — Imputation to corporation tax of the amount withheld possible only for resident companies

      Operative part of the order

   Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies withholding tax to dividends distributed by a resident company to resident and non-resident recipient companies which have a holding of less than 10 % in the capital of the distributing company but with a purchase value of at least EUR 1.2 million, while at the same time providing a mechanism for the mitigation of a series of charges to tax only for resident recipient companies. Where a Member State relies on a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with another Member State, it is for the national court to establish whether account should be taken, in the main proceedings, of that convention, and, if so, to determine whether it enables the effects of the restriction on the free movement of capital to be neutralised.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Appointment of the Registrar

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/4

         Appointment of the Registrar
   2010/C 317/08
   By letter dated 11 June 2010, Mr Roger Grass, Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union, requested that his term of office come to an end on 7 October 2010.
   The Court of Justice, at its General Meeting on 14 September 2010, appointed as registrar Mr Alfredo Calot Escobar, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from 7 October 2010 to 6 October 2016.
   Mr Calot Escobar took the oath provided for in Article 10 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union at the formal sitting on 6 October 2010.


title: Case T-533/10: Action brought on 24 November 2010 — DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/44

         Action brought on 24 November 2010 — DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission
   (Case T-533/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/80
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, SA (Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4925 final of 20 July 2010, and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present proceedings, a satellite pay TV operator, challenges Commission Decision C(2010) 4925 final of 20 July 2010‘on the State aid scheme No C 38/2009 (ex NN 58/2009) which Spain is planning to implement for Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (RTVE)’, which declared that that scheme, as amended by Law 8/2009 of 28 August 2009 on financing Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, was compatible with the common market, without its being necessary to analyse the scheme’s method of financing.
   The applicant submits that the Commission was not entitled to authorise the aid scheme in question without analysing the method of financing introduced by the above-mentioned Law and, specifically, the 1,5% tax on the gross operating income of pay-TV broadcasters.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               —

               Error of law on the part of the Commission, by authorising the aid which is the subject-matter of the proceedings without analysing its method of financing. In that connection, it is submitted that it is settled case-law that aid cannot be considered separately from the effects of its method of financing if that method forms an integral part of the aid, and that, with regard to the present case, the 1.5 % tax on the gross operating income of pay-TV broadcasters forms an integral part of the aid scheme, which is why the Commission ought to have analysed the scheme and the aid together.

               —

               Infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, in that the Commission authorised an aid scheme which fails to observe the principle of proportionality, since the taxes financing the scheme involve a serious distortion of competition, in the content acquisitions market and in the downstream viewers’ market, contrary to the common interest.

               —

               Infringement of Articles 49 and 63 TFEU. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission infringed those provisions, in so far as the method of financing the aid authorised restricts freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital, by making it less attractive for pay TV operators and other investors established in other Member States to exercise those freedoms.


title: Case C-444/06: Action brought on 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/36

         Action brought on 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-444/06)
   (2006/C 326/76)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, C. Fernandez Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

      Defendan: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to provide for a mandatory period within which the contracting authority has to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the bidders, by failing to provide for a mandatory waiting period between the decision on the award of the contract and its performance and by allowing an annulled contract to continue to have legal effect, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission considers that the Spanish rule on the review of public contracts is not consistent with Directive 89/665 according to the interpretation given by the Court of Justice in Case C-81/98 Alcatel Austria and Others [1999] ECR I-7671.
   In particular, the Spanish legislation:
   does not provide for a mandatory period within which the contracting authority has to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the bidders,
   does not provide for a mandatory waiting period between the decision on the award of the contract and its performance and,
   allows an annulled contract to continue to have legal effect.

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p.33.


title: Case T-109/12: Action brought on 7 March 2012 — Spain v Commission

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/23

         Action brought on 7 March 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-109/12)
   2012/C 126/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin-Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 of 29 July 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund and the procedure for making financial corrections, (1) since more than three months elapsed between the date of the hearing and the decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article H of Annex II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund, (2) since the procedure laid down in that article was applied without the necessary verifications having been completed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article H of Annex II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund, on the ground that there was a lack of verification to refute the end-of-project declarations.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article H of Annex II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund, since it has not been established that there were irregularities.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in relation to Project CCI No 2000.ES. 16.C PE.020, since the Commission applied to that project criteria from a document (the guidelines for determining financial corrections for public procurement, presented to the Member States at the Coordination Committee of the Funds of 28 November 2007) which was not made public until some 29 months after the Spanish authorities had submitted the documents for the final balance.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 201, p. 5.

      (2)  OJ 1994 L 130 p. 1, amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 57).


title: Case C-25/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 31, by order of that court of 9 December 1999 in the case of Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 against Hôtel Plaza SpA

text:
C 102/12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         8.4.2000
Appeal brought on 27 January 2000 by the Council of                    Pleas in law and main arguments
the European Union against the judgment delivered on
1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                In accordance with the terms of the judgment, the Council has
Cases T-125/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH                     been entirely successful in its defence of all claims raised before
and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération                  the Court, namely, in the action for partial annulment of
Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the United                 Council Directive 96/22/EC (3) and the claim for compensation
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the                 arising from the adoption of the said directive in Case
Council of the European Union, supported by Stichting                  T-125/96 and the related plea of illegality raised in the context
Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the                   of the action for the partial annulment of Commission
Commission of the European Communities, and T-152/96                   Regulation 1312/96 (4) in Case T-152/96.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boeh-
ringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de
la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the                   Notwithstanding the apparently successful outcome of the
European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwali-                    action, the Council lodges the present appeal in relation to the
teitsgarantie Vleeskalveren sector (SKV) and the Council               judgment in Case T-125/96, as it considers that the Court of
                   of the European Union                               First Instance committed a fundamental error of law by failing
                                                                       to properly examine the Council’s plea of inadmissibility. In
                                                                       the submission of the Council, failure by the Court to firstly
                                                                       rule on the right of a natural or legal person to bring annulment
                                                                       proceedings against a directive, prior to its consideration of
                        (Case C-23/00 P)
                                                                       the merits of the case, is in contradiction with the letter and
                                                                       the spirit of Article 230(4)EC and in contradiction with the
                                                                       Court’s own case-law.
                        (2000/C 102/19)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996, p. 15.
                                                                       (2) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996, p. 32.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 December                 (3) Of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in
1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of               stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyro-
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-125/96 (1)                      static action and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives
                                                                           81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (OJ L 125, 23.05.96,
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer
                                                                           p. 3).
Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé
                                                                       (4) Of 8 July 1996 amending Annex III of Council Regulation (EEC)
Animale (Fedesa) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                           No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the
Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union,                   establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal
supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector              products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 170 of 9.7.1996,
(SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities, and                  p. 8).
T-152/96 (2) Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européen-
ne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the
European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Council of the
European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 27 January 2000 by the
Council of the European Union, represented by Mrs Moyra
Sims-Robertson and Mr Ignacio Dı́ez Parra, Legal Advisers,
acting as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
the office of Mr Alessandro Morbilli, Director of the Legal            Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 31, by
Affairs Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100               order of that court of 9 December 1999 in the case of
Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg.                                  Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 against Hôtel Plaza SpA
                                                                                (Case C-25/00)
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 102/20)
— rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Council in Case T-125/96;                                          European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
                                                                       ria Regionale di Venezia 2 — Sezione 31 (Regional Tax Court,
                                                                       Venice — Section 31) of 9 December 1999, received at the
— set aside that part of the decision of the Court of First            Court Registry on 28 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling
    Instance dispensing with the need to rule on the objection         in the case of Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 against Hôtel
    of inadmissibility raised by the Council.                          Plaza SpA on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 102/13
a) Is a direct, extraordinary, periodic tax (0.75 % per annum;             imposed by the Regulation but aeroplanes wholly re-engined
     Decree-Law No 394/92, converted into Law No 461/92,                   with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three are
     extended by Decree-Law No 564/94, converted into Law                  subject to prohibitions, having regard in particular to:
     No 656/94 and extended by Law No 549/95) compatible
     with Community law, and in particular with Directive
     No 69/335/EEC? (1)                                                    (i) the duty to give reasons under Article 253 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty;
b) Having regard to the teleological criterion which, EEC                  (ii) the general principle of proportionality;
     case-law shows, is to be preferred to literal and systematic
     criteria, is it lawful to levy the tax on assets upon capital,
     as defined under the heading ‘Passivo/A) Patrimonio netto/I           (iii) such rights as private parties may derive from the General
     Capitale’ in Article 2424(2) of the Civil Code, as amended                  Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and/or the Agreement on
     by Article 5 of Decree-Law No 127/91, where that capital                    Technical Barriers to Trade?
     has already been assessed to an initial tax on contributions
     in accordance with Presidential Decree No 131/86?
                                                                           (1) On the registration and operation within the Community of
                                                                                certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been
                                                                                modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of volume 1,
(1) Council Directive of 17 July 1969 (OJ, English Special Edition              Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International
    1969 (II), p. 405).                                                         Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (OJ L 115 of 4.5.1999,
(2) Article 2424 of the Civil Code sets out a number of balance sheet           p. 1) and Corrigendum (OJ L 120 of 8.5.1999, p. 47).
    items.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                           Gerichtshof by order of that court of 14 December 1999
                                                                           in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsan-
                                                                                stalt der Angestellten
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 December                                                   (Case C-28/00)
1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte:
                                                                                (2000/C 102/22)
                           Omega Air Ltd
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            (Case C-27/00)                                 European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
                                                                           hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 14 December 1999, which
                                                                           was received at the Court Registry on 1 February 2000, for a
                          (2000/C 102/21)                                  preliminary ruling in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsver-
                                                                           sicherungsanstalt der Angestellten on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                      Is Article 94(1) to (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown                   of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
Office), of 21 December 1999, which was received at the                    to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
Court Registry on 31 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling                members of their families moving within the Community (1),
in the case of the Queen against Secretary of State for the                as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte: Omega Air                No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2), as amended by Council
Ltd, on the following question:                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1249/92 of 30 April 1992 (3), to be
                                                                           interpreted as precluding a national provision under which,
                                                                           for the purpose of pension insurance, periods of child-rearing
                                                                           in the country are to be regarded as substitute qualifying
Is Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1)                 periods but such periods in a Member State of the EEA (in this
invalid insofar as it defines ‘recertificated civil subsonic jet           case Belgium) are to be regarded as such only where they occur
aeroplanes’ so that re-engined aeroplanes ‘with engines having             after that Agreement entered into force (1 January 1994) and,
a by-pass ratio of three or more’ are not subject to prohibitions          in addition, only on condition that entitlement to a cash benefit


title: Case C-234/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Sky Italia s.r.l. v AGCOM

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Sky Italia s.r.l. v AGCOM
   (Case C-234/12)
   2012/C 217/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sky Italia s.r.l.

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU, (1) the general principle of equality and the rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the free movement of services, the right of establishment and the free movement of capital be interpreted as precluding the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters?

               2.

               Does Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and does the principle of pluralism in the media, in particular, preclude the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters, distorting competition and creating — or rather strengthening — dominant positions in the television advertising market?

      (1)  OJ 2010, L 95, p. 1.