title: Case C-46/03: Action brought on 7 February 2003 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission

text:
22.3.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/17
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                   b.    a subsequent decision taken on a date unknown to
                                                                                the United Kingdom in December 2002 or January
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                         2003 to decommit those sums;
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2000/77/EC of the European Parliament and of                   c.    any steps taken pursuant to such decisions including
      the Council of 14 December 2000 fixing the principles                          the act of decommitting those sums;
      governing the organisation of official inspections in the
      field of animal nutrition or, in any event, by failing to
      inform the Commission thereof the Italian Republic has                   d.    a Commission decision contained in the letter dated
                                                                                22 November 2002 to issue a recovery order for the
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that
      directive and under the EC Treaty.                                             sum of 9 272 767 Euros of ERDF money already
                                                                                paid to the United Kingdom in respect of expendi-
                                                                                ture incurred on MST 2; and
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                               e.    any steps taken pursuant to such decision.
                                                                         (2) Pursuant to Article 231 EC make a declaration that each
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                of the said measures is void.
                                                                         (3) Pursuant to Article 241 EC make a declaration that in the
Article 249 EC, under which a directive is binding on a                        event that the Commission’s interpretation of
Member State, as to the result to be achieved, entails that the                Article 52(5) of Regulation 1260/99 (1) and/or Article 10
Member States must respect the period for implementation                       of Annex to the Commission Decision C(92)1358/8 is
prescribed by the directive. That period ended on 29 December                  correct, the said measures are inapplicable against the
2001 without the Italian Republic having adopted the necess-                   United Kingdom.
ary provisions to comply with the directive which is the
subject of the Commission’s claims.
                                                                         (4) Make an order that the Commission pay the United
                                                                               Kingdom the costs of and occasioned by this Application
                                                                               and these proceedings.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 7 February 2003 by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against
                          the Commission
                                                                         1)   T he De c om m it m e n t of 1 1 63 2 6 0 0 E u r os
                           (Case C-46/03)                                     of E R DF A ssi s ta nce
                           (2003/C 70/27)                                The Applicant submits that, in concluding that the United
                                                                         Kingdom had not complied with Article 52(5) of Regulation
                                                                         1260/1999, and in its conclusions as to the effect of any such
                                                                         non-compliance, the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
An action against the Commission was brought before the                  interpretation and/or made a manifest error in assessment.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 February
2003 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, represented by P. Ormond, acting as agent, assisted by          The Applicant maintains that the sanction imposed by
D. Lloyd Jones QC and S. Lee, Barristers, with an address for            Article 52(5) of the Regulation applies only where an appli-
                                                                         cation for final payment has not been received by 31 March
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         2001 and that the Regulation requires no more than that an
                                                                         application for final payment has been received by the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              stipulated date. The Regulation does not require the submission
                                                                         of an application in any particular form.
(1) Pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC make an order
      annulling the following measures:                                  In particular, the Regulation does not require that an appli-
                                                                         cation for final payment must be made in the standard form
      a.    a Commission decision contained in a letter dated            ERDF Certification of Expenditure which is usually employed
            22 November 2002 to decommit the sum of                      for this purpose. The Commission therefore erred in law in
            11 632 600 Euros in respect of expenditure incurred          concluding that failure to make an application for final
            on the Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 operational             payment in that form led to the imposition of the sanction
            programme, or MST 2;                                         imposed by Article 52(5).
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                      22.3.2003
The Applicant submits that the documents communicated to                Action brought on 10 February 2003 by the Commission
the Commission constituted an application for final payment             of the European Communities against the Portuguese
in accordance with Article 52(5) and that in concluding to the                                        Republic
contrary the Commission erred in law and/or made a manifest
error of assessment.
                                                                                (Case C-48/03)
It is also submitted that the Commission’s interpretation of the                                   (2003/C 70/28)
Regulation infringes the principles of legal certainty and of
proportionality.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The Applicant submits that if the Commission’s interpretation           10 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
of Article 52(5) of the Regulation and/or the Annex to its              Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, acting
Decision C(92) 1358/8 is correct, the absolute nature of those          as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
provisions is contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, those provisions contravene the principle of
legal certainty in that they are not sufficiently clearly and           The applicant claims that the Court should:
precisely drafted and that, in these circumstances, it is submit-
ted that, by virtue of Article 241 EC, the provisions of the            —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Regulation and the Decision are inapplicable against the United               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Kingdom.                                                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 2000/16/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                              the Council of 10 April 2000 amending Council Directive
The Applicant maintains that the decision of the Commission                   79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs
contained in its letter of 22 November 2002 does not disclose                 and Council Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation of feed
the principle issues of law and of fact upon which it is based                materials, and, in any event, by failing to inform the
and should therefore be annulled on grounds of lack of                        Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed
reasoning.                                                                    to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned direc-
                                                                              tive;
                                                                        —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
2)    T h e D eci si o n to s eek r ecov ery                  of
      9 2 7 2 76 7 E uro s of E RD F As si st an ce
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The Applicant submits that the decision letter of 22 November
2002 by which the Commission notified the United Kingdom                The period for transposition expired on 2 May 2001.
that it was obliged to issue a recovery order for the sum of
9 272 767 Euros should be annulled on the following grounds:
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 2000 L 105, p. 36.
—      that the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
       interpretation and/or made a manifest error of assess-
       ment;
—      that the decision contravened the principles of good
       administration, Community solidarity, regional partner-          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
       ship and the principle of cooperation between Com-               de Rennes, Septième Chambre by judgment of that Court
       munity institutions and Member States (Article 10 EC);           of 5 February 2003 in the case of Alain Rousseau against
                                                                        Association Comité Économique Régional Fruits et
                                                                                Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
—      lack of adequate reasoning.
                                                                                (Case C-49/03)
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
                                                                                (2003/C 70/29)
     down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161,
     26.06.1999, p. 1).
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de


title: Case C-435/08: Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-435/08) (1)

   2009/C 220/59

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-372/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2007 — Nicole Hassett and Cheryl Doherty/The Medical Defence Union Limited and MDU Services Limited v Raymond Howard and Brian Davidson

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2007 — Nicole Hassett and Cheryl Doherty/The Medical Defence Union Limited and MDU Services Limited v Raymond Howard and Brian Davidson
   (Case C-372/07)
   (2007/C 283/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Supreme Court, Ireland
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nicole Hassett and Cheryl Doherty/The Medical Defence Union Limited and MDU Services Limited

      Defendants: Raymond Howard and Brian Davidson
   Questions referred
   Where medical practitioners form a mutual defence organisation taking the form of a company, incorporated under the laws of one Member State, for the purpose of providing assistance and indemnity to its members practising in that and another Member State in respect of their professional practice, and the provision of such assistance or indemnity is dependant on the making of a decision by the Board of Management of that company, in accordance with its Articles of association, in its absolute discretion, are proceedings in which a decision refusing assistance or indemnity to a medical practitioner practising in the other Member State pursuant to that provision is challenged by that medical practitioner as involving a breach by the company of contractual or other legal rights of the medical practitioner concerned to be considered to be proceedings which have as their object the validity of a decision of an organ of that company for the purposes of Article 22, paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) so that the courts of the Member State in which that company has its seat have exclusive jurisdiction?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2201 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, p. 1).


title: Case F-127/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 June 2007 — H v Council

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/54

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 June 2007 — H v Council
   (Case F-127/06) (1)

   (2007/C 199/105)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 85.


title: Case T-191/17: Action brought on 27 March 2017 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v Commission

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/27

         Action brought on 27 March 2017 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v Commission
   (Case T-191/17)
   (2017/C 178/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 19 January 2017 C(2017)379(final);

               —

               state that the effects of this Commission Implementing Decision remain in force until the European Commission has adopted a new decision; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision of 19 January 2017 constitutes a violation of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, read in conjunction with Article 11 of Directive 2001/83/EC and the Notice to Applicants.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision of 19 January 2017 is not consistent with the application of the relevant provisions and guidelines and regulatory practice in other cases and thus constitutes a violation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and results in a distortion of the level playing field.


title: Case T-305/07: Action brought on 9 August 2007 — Offshore Legends v OHIM — Acteon (OFFSHORE LEGENDS (in black and white))

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/48

         Action brought on 9 August 2007 — Offshore Legends v OHIM — Acteon (OFFSHORE LEGENDS (in black and white))
   (Case T-305/07)
   (2007/C 269/87)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Offshore Legends NV (Nevele, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and N. Clarembeaux, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Acteon SARL (Saint-Tropez, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in part, the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1031/2006-2);

               —

               Order OHMI to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Offshore Legends

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Offshore Legends’, in black and white, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28 and 35 — Application No 3 160 231

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Acteon SARL

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international figurative mark ‘Offshore One’ for products in classes 16, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition is rejected in respect of the entirety of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the opposition division, to the extent that it rejected the opposition in respect of the products in classes 18 and 25

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), to the extent that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the risk of confusion and, in particular, erred with regard to the assessment of the similarity of the trade marks in question.

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


title: Case C-95/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2013 by Alfier Costruzioni Srl and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2012 in Case T-261/00 Sacaim SpA and Others v European Commission

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/7

         Appeal brought on 26 February 2013 by Alfier Costruzioni Srl and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2012 in Case T-261/00 Sacaim SpA and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-95/13 P)
   2013/C 129/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Alfier Costruzioni Srl and Others (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veronese, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Italian Republic, Sacaim SpA and Others

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul and/or vary the order under appeal and order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the appellants allege errors of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, first, with regard to the obligation to state reasons for the Commission’s decisions on State aid and, second, with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof as regards the conditions set out in Article 107(1) TFEU.
   By the order under appeal, the General Court did not follow the rulings of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 9 June 2011 in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, in so far as that judgment states that the Commission’s decision ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. Even though the decision lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to point to any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.
   On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to specify the ‘modalities’ for any such verification. Consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the matters essential for the purpose of showing whether the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic — by Law No 228 of 24 December 2012 (Article 1, paragraphs 351 et seq.) — decided to reverse the burden of proof, in breach of Community case law. According to the Italian legislature, in particular, it is not for the State but for the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States. That is clearly contrary to the principles outlined by the Court in its judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’.


title: Case C-605/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 November 2015 — Minister Finansów v Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 November 2015 — Minister Finansów v Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie
   (Case C-605/15)
   (2016/C 090/06)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Minister Finansów

      Respondent: Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a provision of national law concerning the exemption from VAT of independent groups of persons which does not lay down any criteria or procedures governing the fulfilment of the condition of distortion of competition compatible with Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in conjunction with Article 131 of the VAT Directive, and also with the principles of effectiveness, of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations?

               2.

               What criteria should be applied in assessing whether the condition of distortion of competition laid down in Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive is fulfilled?

               3.

               Is the answer to the second question above affected by the fact that the independent group of persons provides the services to members who fall within the jurisdiction of different Member States?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 1998 in Joined Cases C-193/97 and C-194/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Luxembourg): Manuel de Castro Freitas and Raymond Escallier v. Ministre des Classes Moyennes et du Tourisme (Freedom of establishment - Directive 64/427/EEC - Activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and processing industries - Conditions for taking up an occupation)

text:
C 397/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                each of the trades whose scope is defined by the
                                                                    legislation of the host State, the periods prescribed by that
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                    article.
                     of 29 October 1998
                                                                    (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
in Joined Cases C-193/97 and C-194/97 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif,
Luxembourg): Manuel de Castro Freitas and Raymond
Escallier v. Ministre des Classes Moyennes et du
                         Tourisme (1)
(Freedom of establishment Ð Directive 64/427/EEC Ð
Activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
processing industries Ð Conditions for taking up an
                         occupation)                                                       (Second Chamber)
                        (98/C 397/18)                                                     of 29 October 1998
                                                                    in Case C-230/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                    the Hof van Cassatie): Criminal proceedings against
                (Language of the case: French)                                           Ibiyinka Awoyemi (1)
                                                                    (Driving licence Ð Interpretation of Directive 80/1263/
                                                                    EEC Ð Failure to comply with the obligation to exchange
                                                                    a licence issued by one Member State to a national of a
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       non-member country for a licence from another Member
          published in the European Court Reports)                  State in which that person is now resident Ð Criminal
                                                                             penalties Ð Effect of Directive 91/439/EEC)
                                                                                (98/C 397/19)
In Cases C-193/97 and C-194/97: reference to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal
Administratif, Luxembourg, for a preliminary ruling in the                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
proceedings pending before that court between Manuel de
Castro Freitas (C-193/97), Raymond Escallier (C-194/97),
and Ministre des Classes Moyennes et du Tourisme Ð on
the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty and                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Article 3 of Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964                      published in the European Court Reports)
laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional
measures in respect of activities of self-employed persons
in manufacturing and processing industries falling within           In Case C-230/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
ISIC Major Groups 23Ð40 (Industry and small craft                   of the EC Treaty from the Hof van Cassaatie (Belgium) in
industries) (OJ, English Special Edition 1963Ð1964,                 the criminal proceedings before that court against Ibiyinka
p. 148) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P.                Awoyemi Ð on the interpretation of Article 8(1) of the
Jann, President of the First Chamber, acting as President           First Council Directive 80/1263/EEC of 4 December 1980
of the Fifth Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward                   on the introduction of a Community driving licence (OJ
(Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; D.                  L 375, 31.12.1980, p. 1) and of Articles 1(2) and 8(1) of
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                  Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on           licences (OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1) Ð the Court (Second
29 October 1998, in which it has ruled:                             Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the
                                                                    Chamber, G. F. Mancini and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
                                                                    Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
On a proper construction of Article 3 of Council Directive          has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in which it has
64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down detailed                      ruled:
provisions concerning transitional measures in respect of
activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and
processing industries falling within ISIC Major Groups              1. Neither the provisions of the First Council Directive
23Ð40 (Industry and small craft industries), where, in a                 80/1263/EEC of 4 December 1980 on the introduction
Member State, the possession of specific knowledge and                   of a Community driving licence, nor those of the EC
ability is a condition for taking up and pursuing an                     Treaty, preclude the driving of a motor vehicle by a
activity as a self-employed person in a manufacturing or                 national of a non-member country who holds a
processing industry or small craft industry, that Member                 Community model driving licence issued by one
State may not require of a Community national who                        Member State and who, having transferred his
applies for licences to pursue occupational activities in                residence to another Member State, could have
that Member State which he is certified by the competent                 obtained a licence issued by the host State in
authorities of his Member State of origin to have pursued                exchange, but did not complete that formality within
there, that he have completed separately, in respect of                  the prescribed period of one year, from being treated


title: Case T-617/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/35

         Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)
   (Case T-617/13)
   2014/C 24/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 688/2012-3;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchanger inserts’ — Registered Community Design No 1 137 152-0002

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.


title: Case C-614/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 20 November 2015 — Rodica Popescu v Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 20 November 2015 — Rodica Popescu v Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj
   (Case C-614/15)
   (2016/C 068/27)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Craiova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Rodica Popescu

      Respondent: Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the fact that the activity of the staff specifically responsible for inspections in the veterinary health sector is intrinsically linked to the continuation of the activity of the type of establishments mentioned in paragraph [5] [of the order for reference] sufficient grounds for the repeated conclusion of fixed-term contracts, by way of derogation from the general rule adopted in order to transpose Directive 70/1999? (1)

               2.

               Does the retaining in national legislation of special provisions permitting the repeated conclusion, for a period such as that described [in the order for reference], of fixed-term employment contracts in the veterinary health inspection sector constitute a failure to fulfil an obligation of the State when transposing Directive 70/1999?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-529/14: Order of the Court of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 2(4)(b) — Dual use of energy products — Concept — Energy product used for the heat treatment of waste and exhaust gases)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/2

         Order of the Court of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe
   (Case C-529/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 2(4)(b) - Dual use of energy products - Concept - Energy product used for the heat treatment of waste and exhaust gases))
   (2016/C 078/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Itzehoe

      Operative part of the order

   Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the natural gas used, first, for superheating and drying steam which is then used in the ammonia production process and, secondly, for the thermal decomposition and drawing off of residual gases created by that process, does not constitute, for the purpose of that provision, an energy product that has a dual use to which that directive does not apply. Consequently, the Member States may grant a tax exemption for the use of such an energy product only in so far as that exemption complies with the obligations laid down in Directive 2003/96, as amended by Directive 2004/75.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015


title: Case T-179/12: Action brought on 20 April 2012 — Wirtgen v OHIM (Shape of a chisel holder)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/19

         Action brought on 20 April 2012 — Wirtgen v OHIM (Shape of a chisel holder)
   (Case T-179/12)
   2012/C 184/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wirtgen GmbH (Windhagen, Germany) (represented by S. Jackermeier, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2012 in Case R 1923/2011-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional mark in the form of a chisel holder for goods in Class 7 — application No 9 749 631

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 37(3), the second sentence of Article 75, Article 63(2), the first part of Article 76(1) and Article 77(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-32/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/23

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission
   (Case T-32/11)
   2011/C 103/41
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Verenigde Douaneagenten (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. van der Meché, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision for the reasons set out below.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks a declaration annulling the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2010, reference REC 02/09.
   On the basis of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 (1) and Article 871 of Regulation No 2454/93, (2) the Commission found that the applicant acted in good faith and complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force, but that there was no question of an error on the part of the competent authorities and thus post-clearance recovery could not be dispensed with.
   The applicant submits that in the present case there is an error on the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92. That subparagraph provides that where the preferential status of goods is established on the basis of a system of administrative cooperation involving the authorities of a third country, the issue of an incorrect certificate by those authorities is regarded as an error. The applicant submits that this is the case here.
   Moreover, the applicant considers that in the event of post-clearance recovery the Netherlands authorities must prove that the issue of the incorrect certificate is attributable to an incorrect statement of the facts by the exporter.
   The applicant submits that the conclusion must be that the issue of incorrect certificates by the customs authority on Curacao is an error pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92.
   In its investigation the Commission also established that the applicant must be regarded as not having performed any fraudulent acts or displayed any obvious negligence but that it is not a case of special circumstances and therefore remission of duties is not justified.
   The applicant submits in that connection that the ruling in the contested decision on remission under Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 was not given within the period laid down in Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93. Therefore it submits that the Netherlands customs authority should grant the application for remission of duties.
   In its investigation the Commission also failed to follow the correct procedure in that it failed to hear the applicant or place it in a position to make its views known properly, which, the applicant submits, is contrary to the principle of defence in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   Furthermore the applicant states that there is a special circumstance because of the fact that in relying on Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 it is dependent on documents that it does not, and did not have to, possess.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln by order of that court of 15 May 1998 in the case of Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co oHG v Lancaster Group GmbH (Case C-220/98)

text:
15.8.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/27
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,                   certificate which accompanied them to the
by order of that court of 20 May 1998, in the case of                       Community was issued in the sense that they were
Regina against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and                   never unloaded from the ship in question and/or
Food, ex parte: S. P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and others,                 never passed the customs barrier; and/or
Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and
           Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd
                                                                        (b) the special requirements that applied to the
                       (Case C-219/98)
                                                                            relevant plants had already been satisfied in the
                        (98/C 258/43)                                       country of origin?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              5. Are the answers to Questions 1 and 2 different where
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                  the relevant plants were submitted for the certification
of 20 May 1998, which was received at the Court                         in a non-Member Country other than that of origin,
Registry on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the               not for any plant health reason, but so as not to
case of Regina against the Minister of Agriculture,                     have to obtain a phytosanitary certificate from the
Fisheries and Food, ex parte: S. P. Anastasiou (Pissouri)               authorities empowered to do so in the country of
Ltd and others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and                     origin?'
Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises
Ltd, on the following questions:
                                                                   (1) OJ L 26 of 31.1.1977, p. 20.
1. Under Article 12(1)(b) of Council Directive 77/93/
    EEC (1) of 21 December 1976 on protective measures
    against the introduction into the Member States of
    organisms harmful to plants or plant products as
    amended, (the Directive') is a Member State entitled
    to accept (and if so in what circumstances and subject         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
    to what conditions) the introduction into its territories      Köln by order of that court of 15 May 1998 in the case of
    of plants as defined in the Directive (plants')               EsteÂe Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co oHG v Lancaster
    originating in non-Member countries and listed in                                      Group GmbH
    Annex V, Part B of the Directive where those plants
    are accompanied only by a phytosanitary certificate                                   (Case C-220/98)
    issued by a non-Member country from which the
                                                                                (98/C 258/44)
    plants have been transported to the Community and
    not by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the non-
    Member country of origin?
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by order of the Landgericht Köln
 2. Does the answer to Question 1 differ, and if so how, if        (Cologne Regional Court) of 15 May 1998, received at the
    the relevant plants are subject to special requirements        Court Registry on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    laid down in Annex IV, Part A, Section 1 of the                in the case of EsteÂe Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co oHG
    Directive which can be fulfilled in non-Member                 v Lancaster Group GmbH on the following question:
    countries other than that of origin within the meaning
    of Article 9(1) of the Directive?
                                                                   Are Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 6(3)
 3. Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-432/         of Council Directive 76/768/EEC (1) relating to cosmetic
    92 Anastasiou [1994] E.C.R. I-3087 to be interpreted           products to be interpreted as precluding the application of
    and applied so as to preclude the national authorities         national legislation on unfair competition which allows
    of a Member State from permitting the importation of           the importation and distribution of a cosmetic product
    citrus fruits originating in the part of Cyprus to the         lawfully manufactured or distributed in a Member State of
    north of the United Nations Buffer Zone when they              the European Union to be prohibited on the ground that
    are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate which           consumers will be misled by the word lifting' in the
    has been issued by the authorities of another non-             name, indicating the effect of the product, into assuming
    Member country from which those citrus fruits have             that it is of lasting effect, if that product is being
    been transported to the Community?                             distributed with the same indication of its effect on the
                                                                   packaging lawfully and without challenge in other
                                                                   countries within the European Union?
 4. Are the answers to any of the above questions
    different where:                                               (1) OJ L 262 of 27.9.1976, p. 169.
    (a) the relevant plants were never imported into the
        non-Member country in which the phytosanitary


title: Case C-497/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Criminal proceedings against Juraj Sokáč (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Drug precursors — Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 — Article 2(a) — Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ — Exclusion of medicinal products — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 1(2) — Definition of ‘medicinal product’ — Medicinal product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 — Article 2(a) — Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ — Annex — Inclusion of medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — No effect on the scope of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/18

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Criminal proceedings against Juraj Sokáč
   (Case C-497/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Drug precursors - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Article 2(a) - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Exclusion of medicinal products - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘medicinal product’ - Medicinal product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Article 2(a) - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Annex - Inclusion of medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - No effect on the scope of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004))
   (2017/C 168/23)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud

      Party to the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

   Juraj Sokáč

      Operative part of the order

   ‘Medicinal products’, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, which contain ‘scheduled substances’, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1258/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, remain excluded from the scope of Regulation No 273/2004 following the entry into force of Regulation No 1258/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 1259/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries in drug precursors.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-179/10: Action brought on 21 April 2010 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Show Ball Informática (BINGO SHOWALL)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/53

      Action brought on 21 April 2010 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Show Ball Informática (BINGO SHOWALL)
      (Case T-179/10)
      (2010/C 161/83)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Show Ball Informática Ltda

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of OHIM, and

                  —

                  Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Zitro IP.

         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BINGO SHOWALL’ (application for registration No 6 059 919), for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Show Ball Informática.

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (No 5 092 275) containing the word element ‘SHOW BALL’, for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42.

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial rejection of the application for registration.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

         Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-150/12: Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/13

         Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-150/12)
   2012/C 184/25
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ι. Chalkias, X. Basakou and Α. Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 25 January 2012 No C(2011) 9335 final ‘on aid granted by Greece to cereal producing farmers and cereal collecting cooperatives (No SA 27354 (C 36/2010) (ex NN 3/2010, ex CP 11/2009))’ and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 25 January 2012‘on aid granted by Greece to cereal producing farmers and cereal collecting cooperatives (Number SA 27354 (C 36/2010) (ex NN 3/2010, ex CP 11/2009)]’, communicated under Number C(2011) 9335 final.
   As the first ground for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is unclear, because it does not clearly reveal (i) in what respect the aid is unlawful, (ii) how the level of the aid is defined and (iii) who are the beneficiaries for whom recovery should be made. Further, the applicant maintains that the publication of the Commission’s investigation which was undertaken is unclear, with the result that the principle of legal certainty is infringed and the rights of defence of concerned third parties are harmed, contrary to Article 108(2) TFEU, read together with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 659/1999 of 22 March 1999. (1)

   As the second ground for annulment, the applicant claims that there has been an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU, and an erroneous assessment of the facts, because the measures taken — in both forms, the establishment of a guarantee and the interest rate subsidy — do not fulfil the criteria for the definition of unlawful State aid.
   As the third ground for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is vitiated by an error in the assessment of the facts and contravenes an essential procedural requirement, because the Commission, by means of an erroneous assessment of the facts and with a defective and/or insufficient statement of reasons, came to the conclusion that the measures of interest rate subsidy and provision of a guarantee by the government for the funding to the Association of Agricultural Co-operatives constitute unlawful State aid, since they constitute a selective economic advantage for direct and indirect beneficiaries and threaten to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States.
   As the fourth ground for annulment, the applicant maintains that the Commission made an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, and misused the discretion which it has in the field of State aid, since in any event the 2009 payment should have been regarded as consistent with the common market because of the manifestly severe economic disruption of the entire Greek economy and because the validity of a provision of European Union primary law cannot be dependent on the validity of a communication by the Commission, such as the Temporary Community framework on support (hereafter TCF). Further, the Commission rejected with an inadequate statement of reasons the applicant’s argument on the fulfilment of the conditions of the TCF in the present case.
   As the fifth ground for annulment, the applicant claims that the Commission made an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 107 TFEU, since without any justification it included within the financial amount to be recovered as unlawful State aid (a) part of the interest rate which in accordance with the funding arrangement and Ministerial decision No 56700/Β3033/08.12.2008 represents a contribution (contribution of 0.12% of Law 128/75) and (b) the provision in Ministerial Decision 2/21304/0025/26.10.2010 of the guarantee premium at 2 % from public funds, which do not constitute State aid and should be excluded from the final amount to be recovered.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty


title: Case C-492/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/21/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Definition of subscriber)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-492/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/21/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Definition of subscriber)
   (2009/C 69/14)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Article 2(k) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Definition of subscriber.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and in particular Article 2(k) thereof with reference to the definition of ‘subscriber’, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 May 1997 in Case T-90/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility)

text:
No C 199/24             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
Langenhagen ( Germany ), — LTU Lufttransport Unterneh                 1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
men GmbH & Co KG, having its registered office in
Düsseldorf ( Germany ) and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft                2.   The costs are reserved.
mbH, having its registered office in Langenhagen
( Germany ), in its own behalf, represented by Gerrit
Schohe and Philipp von Dietze, Rechtsanwälte in Ham
burg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marc Baden, 24, rue Marie-Adelaide, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Anders Jessen, Paul Nemitz and Georg M. Berrisch ) —
                                                                                of 2 May 1997
application for the annulment of Decision C(95 ) 3319
final of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning                 in Case T-90/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission
fiscal aid in the field of depreciation favouring German                             of the European Communities ( ] )
undertakings — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                    (Competition — Action for annulment — Objection of
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of K.                                                  inadmissibility)
Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and M.
Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                                             { 97/C 199/67)
 14 March 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                       In Case T-90/96 : Automobiles Peugeot SA, established in
1 . The Commission shall pay all the costs.                            Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 (') OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                     Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe, v. Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities ( Agents: initially, Francisco
                                                                       Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Guy Charrier and,
                                                                       subsequently, Guy Charrier alone ) — application for
                                                                       annulment of four letters from the Commission dated 3
                                                                        and 22 April 1996 purporting to reject requests by the
                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                 applicant that confidential treatment be accorded to
            OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             certain information supplied to the Commission in the
                         of 21 March 1997                              context of Article 11 of Regulation No 17 of the Council
                                                                        of 6 February 1962 : First Regulation implementing
 in Case T-79/96 R: CAMAR S.r.l . v. Commission of the                  Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ, English Special
                     European Communities                               Edition 1956-1962, p. 87) — the Court of First Instance
  (Organization of the common market — Bananas —                        ( Second Chamber ), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President,
 Application for interim measures — Request for delivery                and A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
                       of import certificates)                          Registrar, made an order on 2 May 1997, the operative
                                                                        part of which is as follows:
                             97/C 199/66 )
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
 In Case T-79/96 R: CAMAR S.r.l ., established in Florence,             2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
 represented by Wilma Viscadini Dona, Mariano Paolin
  and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar, with an address                 O OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
  Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt, supported by Italian
  Republic ( Agents: Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio
  Ferri ), against Commission of the European Communities
  (Agent: Eugenio de March ), supported by French Republic
  ( Agents : Frederic Pascal and Catherine de Salins ) —                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  application brought under Article 186 of the EC Treaty                                       (Third Chamber)
  requesting the President of the Court of First Instance to                                  of 26 March 1997
  order the Commission to deliver to Camar, in respect of
  1997, certificates for the importation of bananas from                       in Case T-l 19/96: X v. European Parliament (')
  third countries and non-traditional ACP countries, for a               (Officials — Action for annulment — Prior administrative
  quantity equal to the difference between the quantity of                         complaint — Objection on admissibility)
  Somalian bananas which it may import and that which it
  imported during 1988 , 1989 and 1990 and, in the                                                 ( 97/C 199/68 )
  alternative, for all other measures which it may consider
  appropriate to prevent Camar from suffering irreparable                               (Language of the case: French)
  harm before judgment is delivered in the main proceedings
  — the President of the Court of First Instance made an                 In Case T-l 19/96 : X, official of the European Parliament,
  order on 21 March 1997, the operative part of which is as              residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
  follows :                                                              Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,


title: Case C-562/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee
   (Case C-562/12)
   2013/C 38/18
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis

      Defendant: Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee

      Third party: Eesti Vabariigi Siseministeerium

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Are the rules of procedure of a monitoring committee jointly set up by two Member States, such as the Programme Manual adopted by the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007–2013, which provide that ‘The decisions of the Monitoring Committee are not appealable at any place of jurisdiction’ (Chapter 6.6.4 of the Programme Manual) compatible with Article 63(2) of Council Regulation No 1083/2006 (1) in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               (b)

               If Question (a) is to be answered in the negative, must point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that Chapter 6.6.4 of the Programme Manual adopted by the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007-2013 is an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the Union which must be declared invalid?

               (c)

               If Question (a) is to be answered in the negative, must the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 263 in conjunction with Article 256(1) and Article 274 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the General Court of the European Union or the competent court under national law has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions against decisions of the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007-2013?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).


title: Case C-202/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — France Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Abuse of dominant position — Market for services in high-speed Internet access — Predatory pricing — Recoupment of losses — Right to align)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — France Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-202/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Abuse of dominant position - Market for services in high-speed Internet access - Predatory pricing - Recoupment of losses - Right to align)
   2009/C 141/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: France Télécom SA (represented by: J. Philippe, H. Calvet, O.W. Brouwer, T. Janssens, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 30 January 2007 in Case T-340/03 France Télécom v Commission, in which the Court dismissed France Télécom’s appeal against the Commission Decision of 16 July 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/38.233 — Wanadoo Interactive) — Market for services in high-speed internet access (ADSL) — Abuse of a dominant position — Concept of predatory pricing, alignment of prices with those of competitors and recoupment of losses suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders France Télécom SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-499/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014  — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014 — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-499/14)
   (2015/C 026/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants in cassation: VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert

      Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Are goods put up in sets for retail sale that are presented to customs authorities in separate packages because this is justified, but from which it is clear that they belong together and are intended to be offered as a single unit on the retail market, also to be regarded as goods put up in sets for retail sale, within the meaning of Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 (2) of 20 September 2007, in the case where those goods are packed together after the declaration with a view to being offered for sale on the retail market?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 286, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 1999 in Case T-178/99, Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v Commission of the European Communities (Transparency — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom, on public access to Commission documents — Advisory Committee on Value Added Tax — Decision refusing access to documents — Withdrawal of contested measure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 79/28               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18.3.2000
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Madrid, represented by Ramón Garcia-Gallardo and Gerard
                                                                         Pérez Olmo, of the Madrid and Barcelona Bars respectively, 19
                                                                         Square de Meeûs, Brussels.
                     of 6 December 1999
in Case T-178/99, Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
   Elder v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         — annul the Commission’s decision (SG(99) D/7.040) of
(Transparency — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom, on                         26 August 1999;
public access to Commission documents — Advisory Com-
mittee on Value Added Tax — Decision refusing access to
documents — Withdrawal of contested measure — No need                    — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          to adjudicate)
                         (2000/C 79/62)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: English)                        The applicant in the present case is a Spanish federation to
                                                                         which belong practically all the manufacturers, importers and
In Case T-178/99, Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder,              distributors of health products in Spain. What all these
residing in Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom, represented by             undertakings have in common is that they supply health
Scott Crosby, Solicitor, 9 Rond-Point Schuman, Brussels v                products to all Spanish medical institutions in both the public
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   and private sector.
M.M. Ulrich Wölker and Xavier Lewis, application for annul-
ment of the decision of the Commission of 8 June 1999
refusing the applicants access to the minutes of the Advisory            The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision not to
Committee on Value Added Tax, the Court of First Instance                take action on the complaint it lodged against the alleged
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C.W. Bellamy and M. Vi-            abuse of a dominant position by the Spanish ‘Entes Gestores
laras, Judges, Registrar; H. Jung, has made an order on                  del Sistema Nacional de Salud’ (SNS), in particular the delay in
6 December 1999 the operative part of which is as follows:               paying sums owed to the suppliers of health products. In its
                                                                         complaint, the applicant also referred to other abuses, such as
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the present application.            requests for additional services totally unrelated to the object
                                                                         of the contract and the imposition of maximum purchase
2. The Commission shall bear all the costs.                              prices to the detriment of the technical development of the
                                                                         sector.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                         The applicant points out in this regard that sales to the SNS by
                                                                         undertakings belonging to FENIN represent in excess of 80 %
                                                                         of its business, which places the SNS in a dominant position
                                                                         as purchaser.
                                                                         In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that:
Action brought on 10 November 1999 by the Federación
Nacional de Empresas, Instrumentación Ciéntifica, Méd-                  — its rights of defence were infringed inasmuch as no
ica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN) against Commission of the                      investigation file was opened after a thorough analysis of
                    European Communities                                     the complaint;
                        (Case T-319/99)                                  — in the present case, there was a manifest error of assessment
                                                                             of the relevant elements of fact and law, especially of the
                         (2000/C 79/63)                                      nature of the economic activity of the management of the
                                                                             public service provided by the Social Security. The appli-
                                                                             cant states, in this regard, that the defendant has misapplied
                                                                             Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty by misinterpreting the
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                             judgment in Joined Cases C-159 and C-160/91 Poucet and
                                                                             Pistre (1), which, moreover, does not take into account
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    more recent case-law which takes a functional approach
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   to analysing anti-competitive conduct by public-law oper-
European Communities on 10 November 1999 by the Federa-                      ators which are in a manifestly dominant position in
ción Nacional de Empresas, Instrumentación Ciéntifica, Mé-                 such delicate economic areas such as telecommunications,
dica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN), whose registered office is at                postal services or electricity generation.


title: Case C-452/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport BV (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 27, 33 and 71 — Lis pendens — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) — Article 31(2) — Rules for coexistence — Action for indemnity — Action for a negative declaration — Negative declaratory judgment)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport BV
   (Case C-452/12) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 27, 33 and 71 - Lis pendens - Recognition and enforcement of judgments - Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) - Article 31(2) - Rules for coexistence - Action for indemnity - Action for a negative declaration - Negative declaratory judgment)
   2014/C 52/32
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Krefeld

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd

      Defendant: Inter-Zuid Transport BV

      Intervener: DTC Surhuisterveen BV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Krefeld — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Relationship with the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) — Rules on inter-relationship — Lis pendens — Duty to interpret Article 31(2) of the CMR in the light of Article 27 of the Brussels I Regulation — Relationship between an action for damages by the sender of the goods or the consignee thereof and a declaratory action by the carrier seeking a declaration that he is not liable for the damage or, if he is liable, that his liability is limited to a maximum amount (‘action for a negative declaration’).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an international convention from being interpreted in a manner which fails to ensure, under conditions at least as favourable as those provided for by that regulation, that the underlying objectives and principles of that regulation are observed.

               2.

               Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978, according to which an action for a negative declaration or a negative declaratory judgment in one Member State does not have the same cause of action as an action for indemnity between the same parties in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case F-102/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Handwritten signature on the fax different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-102/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Handwritten signature on the fax different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 252/87
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing to pay to the applicant annual travelling expenses from the place of his employment to his place of origin for the period 2005 to 2010.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012, p. 27.


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