title: Case C-175/03: Action brought on 14 April 2003 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.7.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/9
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by B. Stromsky and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of 26 March 2003
                                                                             1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
in Case C-170/01 P: Compañía Internacional de Pesca y                              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Derivados SA (INPESCA) v Commission of the European                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                          Communities (1)                                          Directive 2000/70/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council
(Appeal — Action for annulment — Action for damages —                              Directive 93/42/EEC as regards medical devices incorpor-
Confirmatory measure — Absence of substantive new facts                            ating stable derivates of human blood or human plas-
       — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                               ma ( 1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them
                                                                                to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                          (2003/C 171/12)
                                                                             2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case C-170/01 P: Compañía Internacional de Pesca y                        Article 2 of Directive 2000/70/EC provides that Member
Derivados SA (INPESCA), established in Bermeo (Spain),                       States are to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and
(lawyers: M.I. Angulo Fuertes and M.B. Angulo Fuerte) —                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with that
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                directive before 13 December 2001 and that they are immedi-
the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-186/                     ately to inform the Commission thereof. The Commission has
98 Inpesca v Commssion [2001] ECR II-557, seeking to have                    no information to enable it to conclude that the French
that judgment set aside, the other party to proceedings being:               authorities have definitively adopted the necessary measures
Commission of the European Communities (agents: S. Pardo                     to implement the directive or, in any event, communicated
Quintillán and J. Guerra Fernández) — the Court (Fourth                      such measures to it and thus finds that the French Republic
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. The
Chamber, A. La Pergola (rapporteur) and S. Von Bahr, Judges;                 Commission further submits that the French Republic cannot
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar; has made               rely on the amendment made to Directive 2000/70/EC in
an order on 26 February 2003 by which it:                                    order to justify its failure to transpose it within the prescribed
                                                                             period since the amendment did not affect the deadline for
                                                                             transposition.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Compañía Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA                  (1 ) OJ 2000 L 313, p. 22.
      (INPESCA) to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 200, 14.7.2001.
                                                                             Action brought on 14 April 2003 by the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-175/03)
                          (Case C-155/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/14)
                          (2003/C 171/13)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                 ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 April                      Communities on 14 April 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/10               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, State Legal Adviser, and             (d)   The Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion and
Stiliani Kharitaki, Member of the State Legal Service, with an                  infringed the principle of proportionality since it imposed
address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 27                      such a high correction rate on all the islands of the
rue Marie-Adélaïde.                                                             Aegean, ignoring the limited risk of loss for the Fund, the
                                                                                fact that the check was being carried out for the first time,
                                                                                the fact that the Greek authorities complied immediately
                                                                                with the recommendations of its staff, and the magnitude
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     of the consequences — financial and environmental —
                                                                                which are inversely proportional to the population of
                                                                                each island and may be catastrophic for the smaller
annul, or otherwise amend, Commission Decision C(2003)                          islands (given that preservation of their olive groves and
500 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure                      their survival are dependent upon the grant of aid).
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the EAGGF, in respect of the chapter thereof which concerns
financial corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Otherwise, and entirely in the alternative, the correction
imposed must be restricted: (a) solely to the area of the island
of Lesvos or in the alternative of the island of Rhodes; (b) to
expenditure incurred up until 16 February 2001 at the latest;
and (c) to a maximum rate of 2 %.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis against
                                                                          the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the
                                                                          Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis
                                                                           Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-187/03 P)
The contested decision adopted by the Commission should be
annulled for the following reasons.                                                                (2003/C 171/15)
(a)   It misinterpreted and misapplied Article 11 of Regulation
      No 2019/93, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation
      No 2837/93, Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 as              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
      amended by Regulation No 1287/98, and Article 7(4) of               2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      Regulation No 1258/99.                                              the European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis
                                                                          Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council as
                                                                          intervener, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
(b)   In the alternative — assuming that the Commission’s                 European Communities on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis,
      interpretation of the provisions of Regulations No 2019/            represented by Ioannis Stamouolis, of the Athens Bar.
      93 and No 2837/93 is correct — given the manifest lack
      of clarity of the regulations and in accordance with
      the guidelines, any misapplication of the Community                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
      provisions connected with that interpretation that may
      have occurred should not be regarded as proving the                 —     find the appeal lawful and well founded;
      existence of all the imputed deficiencies of the system or
      be taken into account when forming the final decision
                                                                          —     set aside the judgment under appeal delivered by the
      regarding the need for imposition of a general correction
                                                                                Court of First Instance on 26 February 2003 in Case
      and indeed of such a high rate.
                                                                                T-184/00;
(c)   The Commission misappraised the facts established in                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      the course of the check and found without sufficient
      reasoning that there were fundamental deficiencies of
      a general nature entailing a particularly high risk of
      Community resources being lost, having first extrapolated           Grounds of appeal
      the findings (which related to the two islands which were
      checked) in an impermissible manner so as to cover all
      the islands of the Aegean. It thereby ignored the special           First ground:                 Erroneous interpretation and
      features which each island displays and vary in accordance                                        application of Article 6(2) ΕU,
      with location, size, population, land morphology, poten-                                          Article 14 of the European Con-
      tial for production, infrastructure and so forth — special                                        vention on Human Rights and
      features which are acknowledged by the very regulations                                           Article 1 of the First Protocol to
      that are applicable in respect of the islands of the Aegean.                                      that Convention.


title: Case T-203/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/46

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)
   (Case T-203/15)
   (2015/C 198/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘WORLD OF BINGO’ — Application for registration No 12 552 162

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 1900/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-125/06: Action brought on 30 October 2006 — Deffaa v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/32

         Action brought on 30 October 2006 — Deffaa v Commission
   (Case F-125/06)
   (2006/C 310/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Walter Deffaa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the Commission of 12 January 2006 in so far as it classifies the applicant, who was promoted to Director-General of DG Internal Audit Service, at Grade A*15, step 4, with effect from 1 August 2004;

               —

               in the alternative, annul that decision in that it refuses the applicant the advance in step provided for in Article 44(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   When he was Director of the DG for Budget and classed at Grade A2 (now A*15), the applicant applied for the position of Director-General (Grade A1) of DG Internal Audit Service, advertised in vacancy notice COM/228/03 (1). His application being successful, he was promoted to the abovementioned position and classed in Grade A*15, step 4.
   In support of his action, the applicant first submits that the contested decision infringes both Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, according to which promotion entails the appointment of the official to the next higher grade in the function group to which he belongs, and the vacancy notice which forms, according to Community case-law, the legal framework within which the procedure must be carried out.
   The applicant also pleads that the case-law according to which it is the vacancy notice which sets the precise level at which the post will be filled, and Article 31 of the Staff Regulations were disregarded.
   Finally, in the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission, by refusing the advancement in step provided for in Article 44(2) of the Staff Regulations, wrongly restricted the scope of that provision, on the basis in particular of a mistaken interpretation of Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which provides for an increase in the monthly salary which, according to the applicant, is not connected to the advancement in step.

      (1)  OJ C 301 A, 12.12.2003, p. 1.


title: Case F-147/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Sommier v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Sommier v Commission
   (Case F-147/12) (1)

   (2016/C 222/60)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23/2/2013, p. 26.


title: Case T-167/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Professional development — Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group — Distortion of evidence)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/54

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY
   (Case T-167/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Professional development - Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group - Distortion of evidence)
   2013/C 344/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

      Other party: AY (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking the partial annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote AY to AST grade 9 pursuant to the 2010 promotion procedure and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all of the costs (points 1 and 4 of the operative part of that judgment).

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 27.7.2012.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2002 in Case T-179/01: Dilexport SRL v Commission of the European Communities (Bananas — Regulation No 896/2001 — Action for annulment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)

text:
11.1.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/19
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and A. Dal Ferro)
                                                                            — application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
                      of 25 September 2002                                  No 896/2001 of 7 may 2001 laying down detailed rules for
                                                                            applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the
                                                                            arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ
in Case T-178/01: Di Leonardo Adriano SRL v Com-
                                                                            2001 L 126, p. 19) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-
                                                                            Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
(Bananas — Regulation No 896/2001 — Action for annul-                       order on 25 September 2002, in which it:
    ment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)
                           (2003/C 7/38)                                    1.    Held the action to be inadmissible.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.01.
In Case T-178/01: Di Leonardo Adriano SRL, represented by
A. Bozzi, C. Gatti and B. Telchini, lawyers, against Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and A. Dal
Ferro) — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 896/2001 of 7 may 2001 laying down detailed rules
for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards
the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community
(OJ 2001 L 126, p. 19) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-                 Action brought on 11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                Company, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in
order on 25 September 2002, in which it:                                           the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
1.    Held the action to be inadmissible;
                                                                                (Case T-318/02)
2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 7/40)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.01.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                      of 25 September 2002                                  11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports Company, Inc., Redmond,
                                                                            Washington, U.S.A., represented by Mr Fabrizio Jacobacci,
in Case T-179/01: Dilexport SRL v Commission of the                         lawyer.
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Bananas — Regulation No 896/2001 — Action for annul-
    ment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)
                                                                            —     amend the decision of 17 July 2002 (File No. R 140/
                                                                                2002-3) of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                           (2003/C 7/39)
                                                                                Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs) and allow the Community Trade Mark
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               Application to proceed to registration in connection with
                                                                                the following goods:
In Case T-179/01: Dilexport SRL, represented by A. Bozzi,                         —     ‘backpacks; travel bags; duffel bags for practice of
C. Gatti and B. Telchini, lawyers, against Commission of the                            wakeboard’ in international class 18;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 1998 in Case C-163/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, La Spezia): Criminal proceedings against Silvano Raso and Others (Freedom to provide services - Competition - Special or exclusive rights - Undertakings holding a port terminal concession)

text:
11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 113/3
(such as the automatic renewal of the letting agreement)                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
suggest that the duration stated in the letting agreement
does not reflect the parties' true intention, in which case                                 (Fifth Chamber)
the actual total duration of the accommodation, rather                                    of 12 February 1998
than that specified in the letting agreement, would have to
be taken into consideration.                                         in Case C-366/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal du Travail, Charleroi): Louisette Cordelle v.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
                                                                                Office National des Pensions (ONP) (1)
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                     (Social security Ð Articles 12(2) and 46a of Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð National rules against overlapping
                                                                                Ð Benefits of the same kind)
                                                                                (98/C 113/08)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 12 February 1998
in Case C-163/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
from the Pretura Circondariale, La Spezia): Criminal                           published in the European Court Reports)
      proceedings against Silvano Raso and Others (1)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Competition Ð Special or
exclusive rights Ð Undertakings holding a port terminal              In Case C-366/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
                           concession)                               Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal du Travail
                         (98/C 113/07)                               (Labour Court), Charleroi, Belgium, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                     between Louisette Cordelle and Office National des
                                                                     Pensions (ONP) Ð on the interpretation of Article 12(2)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                     on the application of social-security schemes to employed
                                                                     persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                     families moving within the Community (2), as amended
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     2 June 1983 (3), and of Article 46a of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 2001/83 and subsequently amended by Council
In Case C-163/96: reference to the Court pursuant to                 Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (4) Ð the
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura                        Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
Circondariale, La Spezia (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in        President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against           Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.
Silvano Raso and Others Ð on the interpretation of                   Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O.
Articles 59, 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty Ð the Court               Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho                12 February 1998, in which it has ruled:
de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 February 1998,
in which it has ruled:                                               Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                     14 June 1971 on the application of social-security schemes
                                                                     to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted              members of their families moving within the Community,
as precluding a national provision which reserves to a               as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
dock-work company the right to supply temporary labour               No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, does not preclude a Member
to other undertakings operating in the port in which it is           State from applying a rule against overlapping under
established, when that company is itself authorised to               which, when calculating a survivor's pension awarded
carry out dock work.                                                 under its own legislation on the basis of the deceased
                                                                     spouse's working life, account is to be taken of benefits to
                                                                     which the survivor is entitled in his or her own right in
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.                                              another Member State where those benefits are to be
                                                                     classified as retirement pensions or other equivalent
                                                                     benefits under the legislation of the first Member State. It
                                                                     is for the national court to decide on the classification, for


title: Case T-730/16: Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Espírito Santo Financial Group v ECB

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/35

         Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Espírito Santo Financial Group v ECB
   (Case T-730/16)
   (2016/C 462/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Espírito Santo Financial Group SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Oliveira and S. Estima Martins, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 31 August 2016 of the European Central Bank (ECB) adopted pursuant to Decision ECB/2004/3 not to provide full access to the ECB decision of 1 August 2014 which suspended Banco Espírito Santo S.A.’s Eurosystem monetary policy counterparty status and obliged it fully to repay its debt to the Eurosystem and refusing full access to related documents or decisions of ECB bodies;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to the requested information included in Governing Council decisions should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to the requested information included in Governing Council decisions should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the first, second and seventh indents of Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the second and seventh indents of Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the first indent of Article 4(2) of Decision ECB/2004/3.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached Article 4(3) of Decision ECB/2004/3.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by orders of 22 September 1995 and 27 September 1995 in the cases of Firma T. Port GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95)

text:
No C 16/8             | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                 failed to give any consideration at all to one of the
those of Case C-360/95 (2 ). The time limit for transposition          appellants' claims.
expired on 31 December 1993 .
                                                                       In particular, in relation to the matters of fact found by the
f 1 ) OJ No L 228 , 11 . 8 . 1992 , p . 1 .                            Court of First Instance in its judgment, the appellants'
( 2 ) See page 7 of this Official Journal .                            appeal is based on the errors of law committed by the Court
                                                                       of First Instance in that connection — the obvious
                                                                       substantive inaccuracy of findings, the misuse of evidence,
                                                                       the failure to apply properly the rules and principles relating
                                                                       to the burden of proof.
Appeal brought on 27 November 1995 by ( 1 ) Blackspur
DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald       The appellants contend that underlying the Court of First
Cohen against the judgment delivered on 18 September                   Instance's judgment was a basic error ( or series of errors ) of
1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the              law concerning the correct legal test of causation.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-168/94 (') between ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, (2 )                H OJ No C 286, p . 13 .
Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald Cohen and ( 1 )
Council of the European Union, ( 2 ) Commission of the
                      European Communities
                         ( Case C-362/95 P                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                             ( 96/C 16/16                              circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                       order of that court of 8 November 1995 in criminal
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September                          proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi
1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the                                       Case C-363/95 )
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                                             ( 96/C 16/17)
Case T-168/94 between ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven
Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, ( 4 ) Ronald Cohen and ( 1 )            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Council of the European Union, ( 2 ) Commission of the                 European Communities by order of the Pretura
European Communities, was brought before the Court of                  circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
Justice of the European Communities on 27 November                     District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of 8 November
1995 by ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M.      1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald Cohen, represented by K. P. E. Lasok,           27 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in criminal
QC, instructed by Charles Khan of Berg & Co., Solicitors,              proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi .
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Maria Dennewald, 12, avenue de la Porte Neuve .                     The questions referred by the Pretura circondariale di Roma
                                                                       — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice for a
The appellants request the Court to order that:                        preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case
                                                                       C-58/95 ( M.
( a ) the decision of the Court of First Instance be set
       aside;                                                          (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
( b ) the case be remitted to the Court of First Instance;
        and
(c ) the Council and the Commission pay the Appellants'                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
       costs .
                                                                       Hamburg by orders of 22 September 1995 and
                                                                       27 September 1995 in the cases of Firma T. Port GmbH &
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
The appellants submit that the judgment of the Court of                               ( Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 )
First Instance is vitiated by errors of law. These errors of law                                   ( 96/C 16/18 )
comprise infringement of the Appellants' right to a fair trial,
as understood in the context of Article 6 of the Convention
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental                     European Communities by orders of the Joint Senate of the
Freedoms, the rights of defence and general principles of              Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Finance Court, Hamburg) for
 Community law.                                                        the Länder of the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg,
The appellants did not benefit from a fair trial for various           Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of
 reasons : the Court of First Instance's judgment is riddled           22 September and 27 September 1995 , which were received
with suggestio falsi and suppressio veri in relation both to           at the Court Registry on 16 November 1995 , for a
 the nature of the appellants' case and the evidence and               preliminary ruling in the case of Firma T. Port GmbH
 sources of evidence available to the Court of First Instance;          & Co. v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office )
 the Court of First Instance misused the evidence before it            Hamburg-Jonas on the first, second and third questions in
 and refrained from ordering measures of enquiry even                   Case C- 1 82/95 ( M.
 though it was appropriate to do so; the Court of First
                                                                        0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 12 .
 Instance failed to give any or any sufficient reasons for a
 number of its conclusions; and the Court of First Instance


title: Case C-186/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Finance Court, Münster — Germany) — Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Article 173(1) — Goods or services used to carry out both taxable transactions and exempt transactions (‘mixed use goods and services’) — Determining the amount of the value added tax deduction — Deductible proportion — Article 174 — Deductible proportion calculated by applying an allocation key according to turnover — Article 173(2) — Derogation — Article 175 — Rounding-up rule for the deductible proportion — Articles 184 and 185 — Adjustment of deductions)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Finance Court, Münster — Germany) — Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück
   (Case C-186/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Article 173(1) - Goods or services used to carry out both taxable transactions and exempt transactions (‘mixed use goods and services’) - Determining the amount of the value added tax deduction - Deductible proportion - Article 174 - Deductible proportion calculated by applying an allocation key according to turnover - Article 173(2) - Derogation - Article 175 - Rounding-up rule for the deductible proportion - Articles 184 and 185 - Adjustment of deductions))
   (2016/C 305/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Münster

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück

      Defendant: Finanzamt Wiedenbrück

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 175(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are not required to apply the rounding-up rule laid down in that provision where the deductible proportion is calculated in accordance with one of the derogating methods set out in Article 173(2) of that directive.

               2.

               Article 184 et seq. of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to apply the rounding-up rule laid down in Article 175(1) of that directive in the event of adjustment where, under their national legislation, the deductible proportion has been calculated in accordance with one of the methods set out in Article 173(2) of that directive or in the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of the 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, only where that rule was applied to determine the initial amount of the deduction.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop) (Officials — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 161/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           2.6.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 March 2001
                         of 6 March 2001                                 in Case T-298/00: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen
                                                                         pour le développement de la formation professionnelle
                                                                                (Cedefop) (1)
in Case T-187/00: Gödecke AG v Office for Harmonisation                  (Officials — Action which has become devoid of purpose —
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                No need to adjudicate)
                            (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/40)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of                                           (Language of the case: French)
the application for a Community trade mark — No need to
                            adjudicate)
                                                                         In Case T-298/00: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the Council
                                                                         of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and V. Peere, avocats, with an address
                         (2001/C 161/39)                                 for service in Luxembourg, against Centre européen pour le
                                                                         développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop)
                                                                         (Agent: B. Wägenbour) — application for annulment of the
                                                                         implied rejection of a claim for payment of a re-installation
                                                                         allowance — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                         composed of P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
                  (Language of the case: English)                        J.D. Cooke, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made an order on
                                                                         12 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action;
In Case T-187/00: Gödecke AG, established in Freiburg im
Breisgau, Germany, represented by W. Schmid and A. Schaben-              2.    Cedefop shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the
berger, Rechtsanwälte, against Office for Harmonisation in the                 applicant.
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
O. Montalto and J. Miranda de Sousa) intervener before the               (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.00.
Court of First Instance: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd,
established in Jerusalem, (Israel), represented by G. Farrington,
Solicitor — appeal against the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2000 (Case R 501/1999-
1), notified to the applicant on 17 May 2000, relating
to opposition proceedings between Gödecke AG and Teva                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd — the Court of First Instance                                           INSTANCE
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili
and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 6 March 2001, the operative part of which is as                                     of 1 February 2001
follows:
                                                                         in Case T-350/00 R: Free Trade Foods NV v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
1.   There is no need to adjudicate.
                                                                         (Interlocutory proceedings — Safeguard measures — Sugar
                                                                         sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin —
                                                                                Urgency)
2.   The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 161/41)
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.00.                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         In Case T-350/00 R: Free Trade Foods NV, having its registered
                                                                         office in Curaçao (Netherlands Antilles), represented by M. Slot-
                                                                         boom and R.J. van Agteren, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. Van der Hauwaert) —


title: Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-168/95 Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others v Council of the European Union (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Fixing of derived intervention prices for deficit areas - Action for annulment - Natural and legal persons - Inadmissible)

text:
16.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 299/21
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 8 July 1999                                                               of 8 July 1999
in Case T-158/95: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and                  in Case T-168/95 Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and
         Others v Council of the European Union (1)                                  Others v Council of the European Union (1)
(Common organisation of markets in the sugar sector —                      (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
System of compensation for storage costs — Action for                      — Fixing of derived intervention prices for deficit areas
annulment — Natural and legal persons — Inadmissibility)                   — Action for annulment — Natural and legal persons
                                                                                — Inadmissible)
                          (1999/C 299/26)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/27)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-158/95: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA, estab-
lished in Genoa (Italy), ISI — Industria Saccarifera Italiana              In Case T-168/95: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA, whose
Agroindustriale SpA, established in Padua (Italy), Sadam                   registered office is in Genoa (Italy), Industria Saccarifera Italiana
Zuccherifici, a division of SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali            Agroindustriale SpA, whose registered office is in Padua (Italy),
Industriali SpA, established in Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castig-             Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of Società Esercizi Commerciali
lionese SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo SpA,                    Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese SpA and Sadam Abruzzo
established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, estab-               SpA, all registered in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,
lished at Termoli (Italy), SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale            whose registered office is at Termoli (Italy) Società Fondiaria
Romagnolo SpA, established at Cesena (Italy), and Ponteco                  Industriale Romagnola SpA, whose registered office is at
Zuccheri SpA, established at Pontelagoscuro (Italy), represent-            Cesena (Italy) and Ponteco Zuccheri SpA, whose registered
ed by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor, and Ivano Vigliotti and                 office is at Pontelagoscuro (Italy), represented by Bernard
Paolo Crocetta, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for service              O’Connor, Solicitor, and Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta, of
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12                     the Genoa Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Boulevard de la Foire, v Council of the European Union                     the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire
(Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and Ignacio Dı́ez Parra), supported by              v Council of the European Union (Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Eugenio                     Ignacio Dı́ez Parra), supported by the Commission of the
De March) — application, in substance, for annulment, first,               European Communities (Agent: Eugenio De March) — appli-
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995                     cation for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1534/95
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common                         of 29 June 1995 fixing, for the 1995/96 marketing year, the
organization of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation              derived intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
(EEC) No 1010/86 laying down general rules for the pro-                    price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and
duction refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical              the amount of compensation for storage costs (OJ 1995
industry (OJ 1995 L 110, p. 1) and, second, of Council                     L 148, p. 11) in so far as it predicts, for the purposes of fixing
Regulation (EC) No 1534/95 of 29 June 1995 fixing, for the                 the derived intervention prices for white sugar, a deficit supply
1995/96 marketing year, the derived intervention prices for                situation in Italy’s production areas — the Court of First
white sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum             Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
prices for A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for                J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
storage costs (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 11) — the Court of                        judgment on 8 July 1999, the operative part of which is as
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                follows:
President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:               1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                              2. The applicants are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, in
                                                                                addition to their own costs, the entirety of the costs incurred by
2. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear their own costs          the Council in the present proceedings, including those incurred
     and to pay the costs of the Council;                                       in the action for interim relief.
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                            3. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.                                                (1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.


title: Case C-346/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2011 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Staat der Nederlanden v Denkavit Nederland BV and Others (Agriculture — Animal health — Directive 90/425/EEC — National temporary regulation intended to combat the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy by prohibiting the production of and trading in processed animal proteins for feeding to farmed animals — Application of that regulation before the entry into force of Decision 2000/766/EC requiring such prohibition — Application of that regulation to two products eligible for exemption from the prohibition required by that decision — Compatibility with Directive 90/425/EEC and Decisions 94/381/EC and 2000/766/EC)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2011 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Staat der Nederlanden v Denkavit Nederland BV and Others
   (Case C-346/09) (1)

   (Agriculture - Animal health - Directive 90/425/EEC - National temporary regulation intended to combat the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy by prohibiting the production of and trading in processed animal proteins for feeding to farmed animals - Application of that regulation before the entry into force of Decision 2000/766/EC requiring such prohibition - Application of that regulation to two products eligible for exemption from the prohibition required by that decision - Compatibility with Directive 90/425/EEC and Decisions 94/381/EC and 2000/766/EC)
   2011/C 232/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staat der Nederlanden

      Respondents: Denkavit Nederland BV, Cehave Landbouwbelang Voeders BV, Arie Blok BV, Internationale Handelsmaatschappij‘Demeter’ BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of: Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 29); Commission Decision 94/381/EC of 27 June 1994 concerning certain protection measures with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the feeding of mammalian derived protein (OJ 1994 L 172, p. 23); Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (OJ 2000 L 306, p. 32); and Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures required for the implementation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (OJ 2001 L 2, p. 32) — National legislation prohibiting the production and marketing of processed animal proteins for feeding farm animals — Date of entry into force and transitional period

      Operative part of the judgment

   The law of the European Union, in particular Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market, Commission Decision 94/381/EC of 27 June 1994 concerning certain protection measures with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the feeding of mammalian derived protein and Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein, does not preclude national legislation which, with a view to affording protection against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, imposed a temporary prohibition on the production of and trading in processed animal proteins for feeding to farmed animals if the situation in the Member State concerned was so urgent as to justify the immediate adoption of such measures on serious grounds of public or animal health. It is for the referring court to establish whether that condition was met and the principle of proportionality observed.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-344/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2007 — Bouychou v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Decision ordering repayment of State aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine — Annulment of the decision by judgment of the Court)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2007 — Bouychou v Commission
   (Case T-344/04) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Decision ordering repayment of State aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine - Annulment of the decision by judgment of the Court)
   (2007/C 211/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Denis Bouychou, insolvency administrator of disposal of the company Stardust Marine (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Vatier and M. Verger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G.Rozet and C. Giolito, Agents)
   Re:
   Claim for compensation for loss allegedly caused by Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999 on aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine, represented by Denis Bouychou, as insolvency administrator.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-437/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 August 2013 — Unitrading Ltd; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 August 2013 — Unitrading Ltd; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-437/13)
   2013/C 325/21
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Unitrading Ltd

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the rights enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (1) [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] mean that if customs authorities, in the context of the submission of evidence as to the origin of imported goods, intend to rely on the results of an examination carried out by a third party with regard to which that third party does not disclose further information either to the customs authorities or to the declarant, as a result of which it is made difficult or impossible for the defence to verify or disprove the correctness of the conclusion arrived at and the court is hampered in its task of evaluating the results of the examination, those examination results may not be taken into account by the court? Does it make any difference to the answer to that question that that third party withholds the information concerned from the customs authorities and from the party concerned on the ground, not further explained, that ‘law enforcement sensitive information’ is involved?

               2.

               Do the rights enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter mean that when the customs authorities cannot disclose further information in respect of the examination carried out which forms the basis for their position that the goods have a specific origin — the results of which are challenged by reasoned submissions — the customs authorities — in so far as can reasonably be expected of them — must cooperate with the party concerned in connection with the latter’s request that it conduct, at its own expense, an inspection and/or sampling in the country of origin claimed by that party?

               3.

               Does it make a difference to the answer to the first and second questions that, following the notification of the customs duties payable, portions of the samples of the goods, to which the party concerned could have obtained access with a view to having an examination carried out by another laboratory, were still available for a limited period, even though the result of such an examination would have had no bearing on the fact that the results obtained by the laboratory used by the customs authorities could not be verified, with the result that even in that case it would have been impossible for the court — if that other laboratory were to find in favour of the origin claimed by the party concerned — to compare the results of the two laboratories with respect to their reliability? If so, must the customs authorities point out to the party concerned that portions of the samples of the goods are still available and that it may request those samples for purposes of such an examination?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-154/06: Action brought on  21 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/32

         Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-154/06)
   (2006/C 131/59)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, with regard to the province of Åland, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 (1) amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) or in any case by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 13 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 106.


title: Case F-109/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 3 December 2014  — DG v ENISA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Termination of contract — No statement of reasons — Failure to comply with the reports procedure — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 3 December 2014 — DG v ENISA
   (Case F-109/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Termination of contract - No statement of reasons - Failure to comply with the reports procedure - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2015/C 026/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented initially by P. Empadinhas, acting as Agent, and by C. Meidanis, lawyer, and subsequently by P. Empadinhas and S. Purser, acting as Agents, and by C. Meidanis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to dismiss the applicant, to order her reinstatement and the payment of the financial benefits that should have been paid to her from the end of her contract, after deduction of any income received during the same period, together with interest calculated at 3 points above the rate fixed by the ECB, and for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Declares that DG is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014, p. 21.


title: Case T-367/04: Action brought on 15 September 2004 by Gibtelecom Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/24

         Action brought on 15 September 2004 by Gibtelecom Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-367/04)
   (2004/C 284/48)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 September 2004 by Gibtelecom Limited, Gibraltar, represented by M. Llamas, Barrister and B. O'Connor, Solicitor.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's Decision of 5 July 2004 rejecting the complaint brought by Gibtelecom under Article 86 EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint by the applicant filed on 31 October 1996 alleging that the Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC in refusing to recognise Gibraltar's International Dialling Code (‘350’) and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. The applicant later converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86 EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12 EC against Spain, alleging that Telefonica was acting under instructions from the Spanish Government which claims sovereignty over Gibraltar.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes a series of alleged manifest errors of assessment of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the Commission erred in considering that Telefonica is not a public undertaking or that it enjoys special rights within the meaning of Article 86 EC.
   The applicant further alleges that, by her actions, Spain has infringed the numbering and access provisions of Directives 90/388 (1), 97/33 (2), 2002/21 (3) and 2002/77 (4). It also considers that infringement actions can be pursued against Spain under Article 86 EC whether or not the measures Spain took to prevent recognition, by Telefonica, of Gibraltar's International Dialling Code were of general application.
   The applicant also puts forward a number of procedural and administrative grounds for annulment referring, in this context, to a violation of the applicant's legitimate expectations which allegedly arose as a result of a letter sent on 7 June 2000 by three members of the Commission to Spain and the United Kingdom, requesting the two countries, among other things, to find a solution to the numbering complaint. The applicant further submits, in the context of the same plea, that the Commission has failed to act impartially and that it has breached the principle requiring it to act within a reasonable period.

      (1)  Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (Official Journal L 192, 24.7.1990, p. 10–16).

      (2)  Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (Official Journal L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 32–52).

      (3)  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) (Official Journal L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33–50).

      (4)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (Text with EEA relevance) (Official Journal L 249, 17.9.2002, p. 21–26).


title: Case C-286/12: Action brought on 7 June 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/14

         Action brought on 7 June 2012 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-286/12)
   2012/C 217/31
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligation under Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) by adopting national legislation which provides for the compulsory termination at the age of 62 of the service of judges, prosecutors and notaries public — which gives rise to a difference of treatment on grounds of age which is not justified by a legitimate purpose and which, in any event, is not appropriate or necessary for the achievement of the stated purpose.

               —

               order Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under the Hungarian legislation on the compulsory maximum retirement age of judges, prosecutors and notaries public, the service of the members of such professions is to be terminated when they reach a certain age — currently 62 — whereas previously they could continue to work until the age of 70. The legislation at issue provides that the service of judges and prosecutors who have reached the maximum age before 1 January 2012 is to be terminated on 30 June 2012 and the service of judges and prosecutors who reach that age between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2012 is to be terminated on 31 December 2012. For notaries public, the reduction of the compulsory retirement age from 70 to 62 will be applicable from 1 January 2014.
   The Commission relies on the following pleas in law and arguments in support of its action for failure to fulfil obligations:

               First, the Commission takes the view that the national legislation at issue constitutes a difference of treatment on the grounds of age under Article 2 of the Directive, given that it provides for less favourable treatment for judges, prosecutors and notaries public who have reached the new maximum compulsory retirement age than for all other working persons who have not reached that age.

               If legislation which gives rise to a difference of treatment on the grounds of age is to be excluded from the prohibition on discrimination, it must fulfil the requirements laid down by Article 6(1) of the Directive. On the one hand, the legislation in question has to be objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and, on the other, the means of achieving that aim have to be appropriate and necessary (principle of proportionality).

               In that regard, the Commission maintains that the legislation at issue does not expressly lay down a legitimate aim and nor is it possible to infer such an aim from its context, which is in itself a breach of the Directive, since it prevents the judicial review of the legality and proportionality of the national legislation. As regards the legitimacy of the aims alleged during the infringement procedure, the Commission states that only the aims relating to social policy can be considered capable of justifying an exception to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age.

               Finally, in the view of the Commission, the national legislation at issue is not appropriate or necessary for achieving the allegedly legitimate aims, given that (i) the transitional period of at most one and a half years is extremely short, having regard to the drastic reduction from 70 to 62 in the compulsory maximum age for service and (ii) the transitional period is not consistent with the general reform of retirement, under which the general retirement age is to be increased from 62 to 65 over a period of eight years between 2014 and 2022, which will give rise — after a period of only two years — to a new increase in the compulsory maximum age for service. Consequently, the Commission considers that the national legislation at issue disproportionately damages the legitimate interests of the judges, prosecutors and notaries public affected and goes beyond what is necessary to achieve its aim.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16, ‘the Directive’.


title: Case T-557/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark H.EICH — Earlier national figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)
   (Case T-557/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark H.EICH - Earlier national figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 227/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: H.Eich Srl (Signa, Italy) (represented by: D. Mainini, T. Rubin, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli, G. Petrocchi and B. Passaretti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Mannucci and R. Pethke, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Arav Holding Srl (Palma Campania, Italy) (represented by: R. Bocchini, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 (Case R 1411/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 September 2010 (Case R 1411/2009-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by H.Eich Srl in the proceedings before the General Court;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal;

               4.

               Orders Arav Holding Srl to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/62

         Removal from the Register of Case T-56/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/126)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-56/97, W.C.G.M. Stoffelen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case C-400/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris): Waterman SAS v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Pen cases)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 8 July 2004
   in Case C-400/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris): Waterman SAS v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Pen cases)
   (2004/C 217/18)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-400/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunal d'instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Waterman SAS, formerly Waterman SA, and Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects on the conformity of the Explanatory Notes for subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19 of the Combined Nomenclature contained in the Commission's communication entitled ‘Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities’ (OJ 2000 C 199, p. 1) with the combined nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2263/2000 of 13 October 2000 (OJ 2000 L 264, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Examination of the question raised does not reveal any information such as to affect the validity of subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained in the Commission's communication entitled ‘Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities’.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-553/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — European Commission v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), Hellenic Republic, Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (H.E. & D.S.A.) (Appeal — Competition — Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC — Maintenance of preferential rights granted by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits — Exercise of those rights — Competitive advantage on the markets for the supply of lignite and wholesale electricity — Maintenance, extension or strengthening of a dominant position)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — European Commission v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), Hellenic Republic, Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (H.E. & D.S.A.)
   (Case C-553/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC - Maintenance of preferential rights granted by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits - Exercise of those rights - Competitive advantage on the markets for the supply of lignite and wholesale electricity - Maintenance, extension or strengthening of a dominant position))
   2014/C 315/08
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Oikonomou, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: P. Anestis, dikigoros), Hellenic Republic (represented by M.-T. Marinos, P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents), Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (H.E. & D.S.A.)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Mytilinaios AE, Protergia AE, Alouminion AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, I. Zarzoura, D. Diakopoulos and E. Chrisafis, dikigoroi)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in DEI v Commission, T-169/08, EU:T:2012:448.

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for adjudication on the pleas raised before it on which the Court of Justice of the European Union has not ruled.

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case C-4/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice): BLP Group plc v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Value added tax - Interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 67/227/EEC and Article 17 (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC - Deduction of input tax on goods or services relating to exempt transactions)

text:
No C 137/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
entered into by the branch in the name of its parent body are                input VAT paid, even if the ultimate purpose of the
to be performed in the Contracting State in which the                        transaction is the carrying out of a taxable transaction.
branch is established.
                                                                             (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
(M OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                            ( 2 ) OJ No 71 , 14 . 4 . 1967, p . 1301 .
( z ) OJ No L 229 , 7 . 10 . 1992 , p . 32 .                                 (>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
(-') O J No L 304 , 30 . 1 0 . 1 978 , p. 1 and — the amended version —
      P - 77.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case        C-147/94 : Commission of the            European
                             ( Fifth Chamber )                                            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain ( 1 )
                             of 6 April 1995                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
in Case C-4/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                       to transpose a directive)
Queen 's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice ): BLP                                                ( 95/C 137/12 )
   Group pic v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (')
 ( Value added tax — Interpretation ofArticle 2 ofDirective
67/22 7/EEC and Article 17(2) ofDirective 77/388/EEC —
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Deduction of input tax on goods or services relating to
                         exempt transactions)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                               ( 95/C 137/ 11 )                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-147/94 : Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             Communities ( Agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and F. Enrique
                                                                             Gonzalez Diaz ) against the Kingdom of Spain (Agents :
In Case C-4/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) —
the EC Treaty from the Queen 's Bench Division of the High                   application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 bring into force the laws , regulations or administrative
pending before that court between BLP Group pic and                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Commissioners         of      Customs        and  Excise   —   on    the     90/61 8/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending, particularly as
interpretation of Article 2 of the First Council Directive                   regards motor vehicle liability insurance, Directive
                                                                             73/239/EEC and Directive 88 /357/EEC which concern the
67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonization of
legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes ( 2 )                 coordination of laws , regulations and administrative
and Article 17 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Council Directive                          provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                        assurance (2 ) and by not informing the Commission thereof,
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                       the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Common system of value added tax : uniform basis of                          under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
assessment ( 3 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of                  composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de                      P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ) J. L. Murray
Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and D. A. O. Edward , Judges; C. O.                   and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
Lenz , Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which it                6 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
rules :
                                                                             1 . by failing to adopt and bring into force within the
                                                                                prescribed period the laws, regulations or administrative
Article 2 of the First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of                             provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
11 April 1967 on the harmonization of legislation of                               90/618/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending,
Member States concerning turnover taxes and Article 17 of                          particularly as regards motor vehicle liability insurance,
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on                           Directive    73 /239/EEC        and Directive 88/357/EEC
the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                        which concern the coordination oflaws, regulations and
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                              administrative provisions relating to direct insurance
uniform basis ofassessment, must be interpreted as meaning                         other than life assurance, the Kingdom of Spain has
that, except in the cases expressly provided for by those                          failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
Directives, where a taxable person supplies services to
another taxable person who uses them for an exempt
transaction, the latter person is not entitled to deduct the                 2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed;


title: Case C-199/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Belgium) — Europese Gemeenschap v Otis NV, General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Kone Belgium NV, Kone Luxembourg Sàrl, Schindler NV, Schindler Sàrl, ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl (Representation of the European Union before national courts — Articles 282 EC and 335 TFEU — Claim for damages in respect of loss caused to the European Union by a cartel — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to fair hearing — Right of access to a tribunal — Equality of arms — Article 16 of Regulation No 1/2003)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/14

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Belgium) — Europese Gemeenschap v Otis NV, General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Kone Belgium NV, Kone Luxembourg Sàrl, Schindler NV, Schindler Sàrl, ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl
   (Case C-199/11) (1)

   (Representation of the European Union before national courts - Articles 282 EC and 335 TFEU - Claim for damages in respect of loss caused to the European Union by a cartel - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to fair hearing - Right of access to a tribunal - Equality of arms - Article 16 of Regulation No 1/2003)
   2013/C 9/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Europese Gemeenschap

      Defendants: Otis NV, General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Kone Belgium NV, Kone Luxembourg Sàrl, Schindler NV, Schindler Sàrl, ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 282 EC (now Article 335 TFEU) — Representation of the European Union before national courts — Action for damages — Rules governing the bringing of such an action by the institutions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the European Commission is not precluded from representing the European Union before a national court hearing a civil action for damages in respect of loss caused to the European Union by an agreement or practice prohibited by Articles 81 EC and 101 TFEU which may have affected certain public contracts awarded by various institutions and bodies of the European Union, there being no need for the Commission to have authorisation for that purpose from those institutions and bodies.

               2.

               Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not preclude the European Commission from bringing an action before a national court, on behalf of the European Union, for damages in respect of loss sustained by the Union as a result of an agreement or practice which has been found by a decision of the Commission to infringe Article 81 EC or Article 101 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


title: Case C-206/15 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2015 by Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-78/13: Red Bull v OHIM

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/7

         Appeal brought on 14 April 2015 by Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-78/13: Red Bull v OHIM
   (Case C-206/15 P)
   (2016/C 048/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd (represented by: A. Meskarian, Solicitor, S. Zaiwalla, Solicitor, T. Sampson, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By order of 24 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is inadmissible.