title: Case T-32/15: Action brought on 22 January 2015  — GRE v OHIM (Mark1)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/37

         Action brought on 22 January 2015 — GRE v OHIM (Mark1)
   (Case T-32/15)
   (2015/C 089/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

      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 ‘Mark1’ — Application No 1 2 0 52  437

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 in Case R 647/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-319/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Minister Finansów v MDDP sp. z o.o. Akademia Biznesu, sp. komandytowa (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 132 to 134 and 168 — Exemptions — Educational services provided on a profit-making basis by bodies governed by private law — Right to deduction)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Minister Finansów v MDDP sp. z o.o. Akademia Biznesu, sp. komandytowa
   (Case C-319/12) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 132 to 134 and 168 - Exemptions - Educational services provided on a profit-making basis by bodies governed by private law - Right to deduction)
   2014/C 45/19
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: MDDP sp. z o.o. Akademia Biznesu, sp. komandytowa,

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of point (i) of Article 132(1), Article 133, Article 134 and Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing, contrary to the directive, for exemption from VAT for educational services provided for commercial purposes by bodies governed by private law — Refusal to allow a body which has received such an exemption to deduct input VAT.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point (i) of Article 132(1)(i), points (a) to (d) of 133(1) and Article 134 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude educational services provided for commercial purposes by bodies not governed by public law from being exempt from value added tax. However, point (i) of Article 132(1) of that directive precludes a general exemption of all supplies of educational services, without consideration of the objects pursued by non-public organisations providing those services.

               2.

               A taxable person may not claim, in accordance with Article 168 of Directive 2006/112 or the national provision transposing it, a right to deduct input value added tax where, as a result of an exemption provided for by national law in infringement of point (i) of Article 132(1) of that directive, the input supply of its educational services are not subject to value added tax.
               That taxable person may, however, rely on the incompatibility of that exemption with point (i) of Article 132(1) of Directive 2006/112 so that that exemption is not applied to it where, even taking account of the discretion granted to Member States, that taxable person could not objectively be regarded as an organisation having objects similar to those of an educational body governed by public law, within the meaning of that provision, which is to be determined by the national court.
               In the latter case, the educational services supplied by that taxable person will be subject to value added tax and that person could then benefit from the right to deduct input value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 May 2002 in Case T-197/00: Hubert Onidi v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post with reduction of pension entitlement — Actions falling within the field of corruption — Right to a fair hearing — Principle of proportionality)

text:
C 191/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.8.2002
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 6 June 2002                                                            of 30 May 2002
in Case T-342/99: Airtours plc v Commission of the
                                                                          in Case T-197/00: Hubert Onidi v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the com-                (Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post
mon market — Application for annulment — Relevant                         with reduction of pension entitlement — Actions falling
       market — Collective dominant position — Proof)                     within the field of corruption — Right to a fair hearing —
                                                                                Principle of proportionality)
                         (2002/C 191/40)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/41)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-342/99, Airtours plc, represented by J. Swift QC and
R. Anderson, Barristers, M. Nicholson, J. Holland and A. Gomes
da Silva, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg,          In Case T-197/00: Hubert Onidi, a former official of the
v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal):                Commission of the European Communities, residing at Roque-
Application for annulment of Commission Decision                          fort-les-Pins (France), represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere,
C(1999)3022 final of 22 September 1999 declaring a concen-                avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
tration to be incompatible with the common market and the                 mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice),                   and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the
published under number 2000/276/EC (OJ 2000 L 93, p. 1),                  Commission’s decision of 29 July 1999 imposing on the
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-               applicant the penalty of removal from post with a one-third
sition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,         reduction in his retirement pension entitlement, and of the
J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio               Commission’s letter of 27 July 1999 rejecting the applicant’s
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-            request for the re-opening of the disciplinary procedure — the
ment on 6 June 2002, in which it:                                         Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeg-
                                                                          er, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Plingers,
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                          30 May 2002, in which it:
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(1999) 3022 final of 22 Sep-
      tember 1999 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with
      the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/
      M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice);                                    1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred       2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
      by the applicant.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.


title: Case C-267/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Nutricia NV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Nutricia NV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-267/13)
   2013/C 207/49
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Nutricia NV

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the concept of ‘medicament’ within the meaning of heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as also including food preparations such as the products at issue, which are intended exclusively to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube) under medical supervision to persons who are undergoing medical treatment for a disease or ailment and who have the product administered to them as part of the control of that disease or ailment in order to control or prevent malnutrition?

               2.

               Must the concept of ‘beverages’ within the meaning of heading 2202 of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as including liquid foodstuffs such as the products at issue, which are not intended to be drunk but to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube)?


title: Case C-242/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administrative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the case of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and Elisabeth Paulus

text:
C 184/24                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            2.8.2003
Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Protocol, the discharge into the            Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
lake of the substances referred to in Article 6(1) is subject to                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
two, cumulative conditions: first, there must be a discharge
authorisation issued by the competent national authorities and,                                      (Case C-246/03)
secondly, that authorisation must take due account of all the
relevant provisions of Annex III to the Protocol. The French                                         (2003/C 184/43)
Republic has failed to comply with either of those two condi-
tions.
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
(1) OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 3.                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
(2) Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against          by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
    Pollution (Barcelona Convention), OJ L 240 of 19.9.1977, p. 3.          by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
(3) Council Decision of 25 July 1977 concluding the Convention for
    the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the
    Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of the Mediterranean       The Commission claims that the Court should:
    Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft (OJ L 240 of 19.09.1977,
    p. 1).                                                                  —     declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, to
(4) Council Decision of 28 February 1983 concluding the Protocol for              notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and
    the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    land-based sources (OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 1).                             tive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
                                                                            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour adminis-                     each Member State to which they are addressed.
trative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the case
of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and                     Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
                           Elisabeth Paulus                                 to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                            to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                            or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                            Community.
                           (Case C-242/03)
                                                                            It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                            measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                           (2003/C 184/42)
                                                                            The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                            has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incor-
                                                                            poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      (1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
European Communities by order of the Cour administrative
(Higher Administrative Court) of 3 June 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 6 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and
Elisabeth Paulus on the following question:
                                                                            Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Is Article 129c of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income
tax, as amended, in the version applicable to the 2000 tax
                                                                                (Case C-247/03)
year, which, subject to certain conditions and limits, grants tax
relief to taxpayers who are natural persons and acquire shares
representing cash contributions in fully-taxable resident capital                                    (2003/C 184/44)
companies, compatible with the principle of the free move-
ment of capital within the European Community as laid down
by Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty, taking account of the                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
restrictions on that principle laid down inter alia by                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
Article 58(1)(a) of the EC Treaty?                                          by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                            by Michel van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Minas Konstantinidis,
                                                                            of its Legal Service.


title: Case T-287/08: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2011 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Laboratorios Inibsa (ZYDUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/17

         Order of the General Court of 25 October 2011 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Laboratorios Inibsa (ZYDUS)
   (Case T-287/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 362/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: S. Bailey, F. Potin and A. Juaristi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratorios Inibsa, SA (Llissa de Vall, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2008 (Case R 1322/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Inibsa, SA, and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-323/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Theodoros Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Official — Remuneration — Maintenance payments in the context of divorce proceedings — Deductions from salary)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/26

         Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Theodoros Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-323/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Official - Remuneration - Maintenance payments in the context of divorce proceedings - Deductions from salary)
   (2007/C 96/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Theodoros Kallianos (represented by: G. Archambeau, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04 Kallianos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed, first, the application for annulment of the Commission's decision concerning certain deductions made from the appellant's remuneration in pursuance of interim measures ordered by a Belgian court, and second, the appellant's claim for reimbursement of those sums and for damages — Powers of the European institutions in the context of national divorce proceedings — Methods of communication of divorce decrees and their effectiveness vis-à-vis those institutions
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Kallianos shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-464/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — Holland Malt BV v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Appeal — State aid — Guidelines for aid in the agriculture sector — Point 4.2.5 — Malt market — No normal market outlets — Aid measure declared incompatible with the common market)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — Holland Malt BV v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-464/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Guidelines for aid in the agriculture sector - Point 4.2.5 - Malt market - No normal market outlets - Aid measure declared incompatible with the common market)
   2011/C 30/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Holland Malt BV (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Stoffer and P. Schepens, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents) Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and Y. de Vries, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2009 in Case T-369/06 Holland Malt BV v Commission — Holland Malt BV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/59/EC of 26 September 2006 declaring as incompatible with the common market the aid granted by the Netherlands in favour of Holland Malt BV for the creation of a malt production plant at Eemshaven (Groningen), in the form of investment aid of EUR 7 425 000, subject to the condition precedent of its approval by the Commission (State aid No C 14/2005 — ex N 149/2004) (OJ 2007 L 32, p. 76) — Application of the Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Holland Malt BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-202/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — LR Health & Beauty Systems v OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LR nova pure. — Earlier international word mark NOVA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — LR Health & Beauty Systems v OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.)
   (Case T-202/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LR nova pure. - Earlier international word mark NOVA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 098/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Robert McBride Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2014 (Case R 272/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Robert McBride Ltd and LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case F-91/06: Action brought 11 August 2006 — Nolin v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/21

         Action brought 11 August 2006 — Nolin v Commission
   (Case F-91/06)
   (2006/C 237/36)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michel Nolin (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
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the appeal assessor's decision, of 8 April 2006, setting out the applicant's Career Progress Report (CPR) for the 2005 assessment exercise;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that the defendant erred in law, in as far as some essential tasks and points relating to his work were not mentioned by the assessor and no comments on those tasks are made in his CPR. That situation is due to serious inconsistencies and inadequacies comparable to manifest errors of fact in the consideration of the factors relevant to his assessment.
   Furthermore, the applicant considers that, despite the two changes made by the assessor in his comments as compared with the 2003 reference exercise, the applicant's report from the previous year was repeated, in breach of Article 5 of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, whilst significant changes in the applicant's functions had taken place and the repetition of the previous year's report had taken place without the applicant's consent.


title: Case T-110/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 227/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
In support of its claim, the applicant pleads infringement of           Trade marks objected to       Verbal mark ‘Saint-Hubert 41’ —
Article 87(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty. According to the             in the opposition pro-        Decision of 9 March 2001 in
applicant, the Commission, in its assessment of the aid                 cedure:                       procedure R-127/2000-1
awarded, did not take account of the specific, more expensive
production methods of the applicant required by the Nether-             Proprietor of the marks       the applicant
lands authorities whereby the smell is reduced. According to            objected to:
the applicant, this method of production is not obligatory in
the other Member States, as a result of which production is             Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
cheaper. Furthermore, the applicant pleads infringement of              sition Division:              sition to the application for regis-
the Commission Decision of 6 July 1989 approving the                                                  tration of the mark ‘Hubert’
Bijdrageregeling Proefprojecten Mestverwerking and of
Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Finally, the applicant alleges             Decision of the Board of      rejection of the appeal lodged by
infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of             Appeal:                       the applicant
legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing.
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             violation of the notion of ‘likeli-
                                                                                hood of confusion’ referred to in
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of the Community
                                                                                Trade Mark Regulation (1)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against
   the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                        (Case T-110/01)
                        (2001/C 227/50)
                                                                        Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle
                                                                        GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                  (Language of the case: French)                                                    munities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                   (Case T-111/01)
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A.,
established at Ludres (France), represented by Thierry van Innis                                 (2001/C 227/51)
and Geert Glas, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 9 March 2001 in pro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      cedure R-127/2000-1;                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelme-
—     order the Office to pay all the costs.                            talle GmbH, of Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by Dr Peter
                                                                        von Woedtke, lawyer.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 28 March 2001 (Decision C(2001)
Applicant for the Com-        France Distribution                             1028) on the State aid granted by Germany in favour of
munity trade mark:                                                            EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG (now
                                                                              Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer
The Community trade           the semi-figurative mark ‘Hubert’               Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter
mark concerned:               — application No 108530                         GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motoren-
                                                                              und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
Goods or service con-         various food products including                 GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edel-
cerned:                       milk, other dairy products, vin-                metalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) —
                              egar and sauces, together with                  State aid No C41/99 (EXN 49/95) Germany.
                              hotel and catering services
                              (Classes 29, 30 and 42)                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-38/05: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Agroexpansión v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market sharing — Fines — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Agroexpansión v Commission
   (Case T-38/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market sharing - Fines - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2011/C 347/37
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agroexpansión, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and P. Vidal Martínez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Decision C(2004) 4030 final of the Commission of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) and application for reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, SA under Article 3 of Decision C(2004) 4030 final of the Commission of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) at EUR 2 430 000.

               2.

               Dismisses the action to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders Agroexpansión to bear nine-tenths of its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission; orders the European Commission to bear one-tenth of its own costs and to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-124/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 2 March 2007 — J.C.M. Beheer B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 2 March 2007 — J.C.M. Beheer B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-124/07)
   (2007/C 95/62)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J.C.M. Beheer B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Question referred
   Do the provisions of Article 13 B(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) extend to activities of a (legal) person which performs characteristic and essential activities of an insurance broker and insurance agent, whereby negotiations are carried out in the name of another insurance broker or insurance agent in connection with the bringing about of insurance transactions?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEG of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-330/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Burgas (Bulgaria), lodged on 18 June 2013 — Lukoil Neftohim Burgas AD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt ‘Pristanishte Burgas tsentar’ pri Mitnitsa Burgas

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Burgas (Bulgaria), lodged on 18 June 2013 — Lukoil Neftohim Burgas AD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt ‘Pristanishte Burgas tsentar’ pri Mitnitsa Burgas
   (Case C-330/13)
   2013/C 245/09
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Burgas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lukoil Neftohim Burgas AD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt ‘Pristanishte Burgas tsentar’ pri Mitnitsa Burgas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the method for determining the aromatic constituent [content] of products under Chapter 27 of the CN, set out in Annex A to the explanatory notes to Chapter 27 of the CN, inconsistent with the definition of aromatic constituents contained in the general rules on Chapter 27 of the HS? If so, how are those constituents to be determined and is the ASTM D 2007 method a suitable and appropriate means of doing so?

               2.

               What is the meaning of the term ‘non-aromatic constituents’ used in the explanatory notes to Chapter 27 of the CN, the explanatory notes to Chapter 27 of the HS and note 2 to Chapter 27 of the HS? Is the meaning of that term the same as that of the term ‘non-aromatic hydrocarbons’ or is it broader? If it is broader than the meaning of the latter term, does it include all constituents which, by reference to weight, are not covered by the term ‘aromatic constituents’, or does it refer to constituents of a product, such as the product at issue in the main proceedings, which, by reference to weight, do not fall under either of those two categories, that is to say ‘aromatic constituents’ or ‘non-aromatic constituents’?

               3.

               Is it permissible for one and the same method to be used to determine both aromatic and non-aromatic constituent content for the purposes of Chapter 27 of the CN and Chapter 27 of the HS and, if so, which? If this is not permissible, which method must be used to determine the aromatic constituents and the non-aromatic constituents respectively?

               4.

               Which of the two headings — 2707 or 2710 — of Chapter 27 of the CN most accurately describes a product with characteristics such as those of the product at issue in the main proceedings?

               5.

               In the event that both headings describe with equal accuracy a product having characteristics such as those of the product at issue in the main proceedings, is it the fact that its weight is made up predominantly of aromatic constituents that gives the product its essential character?

               6.

               Which of the two headings — 2707 or 2710 — covers products with properties which are most similar to the characteristics of the product at issue in the main proceedings?

               7.

               Is there an inconsistency between part of the CN explanatory notes to [sub]headings 2707 99 91 and 2707 99 99 and note 2 to Chapter 27 of the HS, or is that note not exhaustive and to be regarded as merely illustrative?
               In accordance with the CN explanatory notes to subheadings 2707 99 91 and 2707 99 99, ‘heavy oils (other than crude) obtained from the distillation of high-temperature coal tar’ are to be classified according to their characteristics in subheadings ‘… 2710 19 31 to 2710 19 99 …’ if they do not fulfil the four cumulative conditions set out in the CN explanatory notes to the former subheadings.
               Pursuant to note 2 to Chapter 27 of the HS, the description ‘petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals’ in heading 2710 is to be understood as also including similar oils, as well as those consisting mainly of mixed unsaturated hydrocarbons, obtained by any process, provided that the weight of the non-aromatic constituents exceeds that of the aromatic constituents.

               8.

               Is there an inconsistency between the CN explanatory notes to subheadings 2707 99 91 and 2707 99 99 (which assign products consisting primarily of aromatic constituents that do not fulfil all four conditions set out at (a) to (d) to subheadings 2710 19 31 to 2710 19 99) and the explanatory notes to heading 2710 of the HS, Part I (B), to which the explanatory notes to Chapter 27 of the CN refer (and in accordance with which that heading does not cover oils in which the weight of the aromatic constituents exceeds that of the non-aromatic constituents, irrespective of whether they were obtained by the processing of petroleum oil or by any other process)?

               9.

               Which is the authentic text and what is the authentic meaning of the second sentence of the CN explanatory notes to subheadings 2707 99 91 and 2707 99 99, which, in Bulgarian, reads ‘Между тези продукти могат да се упоменат’ [literal translation: ‘of these products mention may be made of’] and, in English, ‘[t]hese products [include]’?

               10.

               How is a product with characteristics such as those of the product at issue in the main proceedings to be classified if the weight of the aromatic constituents in that product exceeds that of the non-aromatic constituents, but the product does not fulfil all four cumulative conditions set out in the first point of the explanatory notes to subheadings 2707 99 91 and 2707 99 99 of the CN?


title: Case C-427/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — NEW WAVE CZ, a.s. v ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right — Right of information — Request for information in proceedings — Proceedings linked to the action in which an infringement of an intellectual property right has been found)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/5

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — NEW WAVE CZ, a.s. v ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o.
   (Case C-427/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right - Right of information - Request for information in proceedings - Proceedings linked to the action in which an infringement of an intellectual property right has been found))
   (2017/C 070/07)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NEW WAVE CZ, a.s.

      Defendant: ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as applying to a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, after the definitive termination of proceedings in which it was held that an intellectual property right was infringed, the applicant in separate proceedings seeks information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services by which that intellectual property right is infringed.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case T-81/09: Action brought on 24 February 2009 — Greece v Commission

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Action brought on 24 February 2009 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-81/09)
   2009/C 129/24
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by K. Meidanis and E. Lampadarios, assisted by M. Tassopoulou)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C (2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (‘ERDF’) which was granted to Greece under Objective 1 of the operational programme ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ by Commission Decision C (94) 3579 of 16 December 1994 authorising financial assistance from the ERDF, CCI No 94.08.09.019, in so far as it reduces the financial aid by imposing financial corrections amounting to EUR 11 946 583,53 and EUR 17 488 622, as more specifically set out in the application;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contends that the contested decision should be annulled for the following reasons.
   First, in the applicant’s submission, the contested decision was adopted in breach of an essential procedural requirement laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, (1) since the check on the basis of which the decision was adopted and financial corrections were imposed in respect of certain works was carried out by, amongst others, persons who were not Commission officials. Furthermore, in breach of the principle of transparency, the report on the check does not mention the names of the auditors from the private firm who participated in the check, nor is the report signed by them.
   Second, the applicant pleads that the decision was adopted without full, clear and sufficient reasons being stated.
   Third, the applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the law, in particular (i) it was adopted pursuant to a rule which had not been enacted in the programme period 1994-99 and (ii) the Commission misinterpreted the provisions of Greek law transposing a Community directive, or in the alternative the statement of reasons is insufficient.
   Fourth, the applicant maintains that in adopting the decision the Commission misappraised the factual circumstances (error as to the facts) and infringed the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Case C-67/00: Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
27.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Therefore, is an undertaking whose registered office is in a
                                                                            Member State at whose request a protected designation of
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                 origin has been registered in accordance with Article 17 of
C-42/00 (2); the period prescribed for adoption laid down in                Regulation No 2081/92 (24 July 1993), which has used a
Article 5 of the Directive expired on 31 December 1998.                     designation that is open to confusion with the one
                                                                            registered uninterruptedly over the five years prior to the
                                                                            entry into force of Regulation No 2081/92 entitled to use
(1) OJ 1997 L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 33.                                        the same designation to distinguish products which are
(2) See page 18 of this OJ.                                                 intended to be sold only outside the Member State of
                                                                            registration and only in the territory of a Member State
                                                                            which has not opposed the use of that designation in the
                                                                            said territory?
                                                                        — If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative, may the
                                                                            undertaking whose registered office is in the Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                      of registration of the protected designation of origin (PDO)
Parma — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari                     legitimately describe his products by using the designation
— by order of that court of 21 February 2000 in the case                    which is open to confusion with the one registered until
          of criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi                        the expiry of the fifth year following the date of registration
                                                                            of the protected designation (12 June 1996), in other
                                                                            words until 12 June 2001?
                          (Case C-66/00)
                                                                        — As from the day following the date indicated in Question
                         (2000/C 149/31)                                    6 above (12 June 2001), must the use of any designation
                                                                            open to confusion with the one registered in all the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Member States by any operator who is not expressly
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Parma                  authorised to use the registered designation within the
— Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (District                 meaning of Regulation No 2081/92 be regarded as pro-
Court, Parma, Office of the Judge responsible for preliminary               hibited?
investigations) of 21 February 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling            (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.92, p. 1.
in criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi, on the following            (2) OJ L 83 of 25.3.97, p. 3.
questions:                                                              (3) OJ L 148 of 21.6.96, p. 1.
— Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (1) (as
     amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 535/97) (2) be
     interpreted as meaning that no official measure of a
     legislative or administrative nature need be adopted by the
     Member State concerned in order to allow the use on its
     territory of designations which may be confused with               Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission
     those registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)                      of the European Communities against Ireland
     No 2081/92?
                                                                                (Case C-67/00)
— Therefore, in order to allow use of the designations referred
     to above in the territory of the Member State concerned, is                                 (2000/C 149/32)
     it sufficient that there is no opposition by that Member
     State to such use?                                                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by
— Does the lack of any opposition by the Member State in                the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     whose territory the designation which is open to confusion         by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
     with one registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)            agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
     No 2081/92 is used render lawful the use of that desig-            Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
     nation by an undertaking whose registered office is in the         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     territory of the Member State in which the designation was
     registered, if that undertaking uses the designation which         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     is open to confusion only for products intended to be sold
     outside the country of registration and only within the            — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     territory of the Member State which is not opposed to use              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     of the said designation?                                               Commission Directive 98/28/EC (1) of 29 April 1998
                                                                            granting a derogation from certain provisions of Directive
— Does the period of five years referred to in Article 13(2) of             93/43/EEC (2)) on the hygiene of foodstuffs as regards the
     Regulation No 2081/92 for use of a name in relation to a               transport by sea of bulk raw sugar or, in any event, by
     product whose designation was registered on 12 June                    failing to inform the Commission of those measures,
     1996 (see Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3), cited above)                 Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     expire on 12 June 2001?                                                Directive; and,
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.5.2000
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                        1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
                                                                         to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                         the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ L 333, 04.12.1997, p. 1.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which             (2) Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 (OJ L 262,
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,                27.09.76, p. 201).
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 August
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
( 1) OJ L 140, 12.05.1998, p. 10.                                        richtshof by order of that court of 17 February 2000 in
(2) Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of        the case of DEVELOP Baudurchführungs- und Stadt-
     foodstuffs (OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 1.                             entwicklungs GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für
                                                                                Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
                                                                                (Case C-71/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/34)
Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         of the European Communities against Ireland                     European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                         hof (Higher Administrative Court) of 17 February 2000,
                            (Case C-69/00)                               received at the Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of DEVELOP Baudurchführungs-
                                                                         und Stadtentwicklungs GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
                           (2000/C 149/33)                               Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland on the following
                                                                         question:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by               Do payments which an acquirer of dividend rights in a capital
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                  company makes not on its own behalf but on behalf of its
by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as          parent company constitute a ‘contribution of assets of any
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos            kind’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(d) of Council Directive
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the                 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                    the raising of capital?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              (1) OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 97/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 20 October 1997 amending for the 16th
      time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
      Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and        Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Acciaierie di Bolzano
      use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (2) or,       SpA against the judgment delivered on 16 December
      in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those         1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
      measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      that Directive; and                                                in Case T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-75/00 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (2000/C 149/35)
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 December
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,            1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation             Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance                T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 4 December            of the European Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA,


title: Case C-367/06: Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-367/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/59)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case T-22/14: Action brought on 8 January 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/43

         Action brought on 8 January 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-22/14)
   2014/C 112/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Amal Bergallou (Lot, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul provisions including Article 7 (travelling time) of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and Article 8 (travel expenses) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union [(OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15)], in so far as the entitlement to travel expenses and travelling time is linked to the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 165 596,42 for the pecuniary loss suffered and the amount of EUR 40 000 for the non-pecuniary harm;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages with late-payment and compensatory interest at the rate of 6,75 % in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant — whose place of origin is in Morocco, but who does not receive the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance and, as a result, following the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, loses the right to the lump-sum payment of the travel expenses and the increase in annual leave by additional days of leave for travelling time, relies on five pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical to those put forward in Case T-20/14 Nguyen v Parliament and Council.


title: Case T-172/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Colas v OHIM — García-Teresa Gárate and Bouffard Vicente (BASE-SEAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BASE-SEAL — Earlier national figurative marks representing a diamond shape — Earlier national and international figurative marks COLAS — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Colas v OHIM — García-Teresa Gárate and Bouffard Vicente (BASE-SEAL)
   (Case T-172/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BASE-SEAL - Earlier national figurative marks representing a diamond shape - Earlier national and international figurative marks COLAS - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 126/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Colas (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Logeais, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rosario García-Teresa Gárate and Carmen Bouffard Vicente (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Colas and, on the other hand, Ms Rosario García-Teresa Gárate and Ms Carmen Bouffard Vicente

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4) in respect of goods other than the chemicals used in science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry; manures; and chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs referred to in that decision;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


2.2.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 31/17
       Removal from the register of Case T-52/01 (1)                          Removal from the Register of Case T-140/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 31/32)                                                          (2002/C 31/33)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 3 October 2001 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 9 November 2001, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-52/01 Juergen Schaefer v Commission of the European              Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities.                                                            Case T-140/01: Paul Doyle v Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2000 in Case C-293/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Oviedo): Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (Egeda) v Hostelería Asturiana SA (Hoasa) (Copyright — Satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission)

text:
C 102/4                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
Graf and Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH — on the interpret-                    President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
ation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 Judges, Advocate General; A. Saggio, Registrar; H. von Hol-
Article 39 EC) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez                     stein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón,                   2000, in which it has ruled:
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,                     Article 2(1) and (3) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General:                     1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
N. Fennelly; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,                  men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 January 2000,                 and promotion, and working conditions precludes a refusal to appoint
in which it has ruled:                                                      a pregnant woman to a post for an indefinite period on the ground
                                                                            that a statutory prohibition on employment attaching to the condition
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)           of pregnancy prevents her from being employed in that post from the
does not preclude national provisions which deny a worker entitlement       outset and for the duration of the pregnancy.
to compensation on termination of employment if he terminates his
contract of employment himself in order to take up employment in
another Member State, when those provisions grant him entitlement           (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
to such compensation if the contract ends without the termination
being at his own initiative or attributable to him.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 February 2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            in Case C-293/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción
                                                                            de Oviedo): Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los
                        of 3 February 2000                                  Productores Audiovisuales (Egeda) v Hostelerı́a Asturiana
                                                                                SA (Hoasa) (1)
in Case C-207/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern):                          (Copyright — Satellite broadcasting and cable retrans-
Silke-Karin Mahlburg v land Mecklenburg-Vorpom-                                                            mission)
                               mern (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/06)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employ-
        ment — Refusal to employ a pregnant woman)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                          (2000/C 102/05)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case C-293/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Juzgado de Primera
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Instancia e Instrucción de Oviedo, Spain, for a preliminary
                   in the European Court Reports)                           ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisu-
In Case C-207/98, reference to the Court under Article 177 of               ales (Egeda) and Hosteleria Asturiana SA (Hoasa) — on the
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Landesarbeitsgericht              interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) for a preliminary ruling                   27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules
in the proceedings pending before that court between Silke-Ka-              concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable
rin Mahlburg and land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — on the                       to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993
interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC              L 248, p. 15) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                      Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working                  Pergola, Advocate General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),               has given a judgment on 3 February 2000, in which it has
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting for the                    ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/5
The question whether the reception by a hotel establishment of                 2. Interim measures vis-à-vis a non-Community authority can be
satellite or terrestrial television signals and their distribution by cable        ordered by a national court in the event of an infringement of
to the various rooms of that hotel is an ‘act of communication to the              Community law being imminent only:
public’ or ‘reception by the public’ is not governed by Council
Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of                    — if that court entertains serious doubts as to the validity of the
certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright                      Community measure implemented by that authority and,
applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, and                      should the question of the validity of the contested measure
must consequently be decided in accordance with national law.                           not already have been brought before the Court of Justice,
                                                                                itself refers that question to the Court of Justice;
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                         — if there is urgency and a threat of serious and irreparable
                                                                                damage to the applicant;
                                                                                — and if the national court takes due account of the Com-
                                                                                munity’s interests.
                                                                                The fact that such interim measures would be ordered vis-à-vis
                                                                                an authority of an overseas country or territory (OCT) by a court
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           of a Member State, in accordance with its domestic law, is not
                                                                                such as to affect the conditions under which the temporary
                           of 8 February 2000                                      protection of individuals must be ensured in proceedings before
                                                                                the national courts when the dispute concerns a matter of
                                                                                Community law.
in Case C-17/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage): Emesa
                 Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Amba (1)                               (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
(Conditions governing association of overseas countries and
territories — Decision 97/803/EC — Sugar imports —
ACP/OCT cumulation of origin — Assessment of validity
              — National court — Interim measures)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2000/C 102/07)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                of 10 February 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         in Case C-50/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      in the European Court Reports)                           the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg): Deutsche Telekom
                                                                                AG v Lilli Schröder (1)
In Case C-17/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-                   (Equal pay for men and women — Article 119 of the EC
rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) for a preliminary                     Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                    replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) — Protocol
Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV and Aruba — on the validity of                      concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty — Occupational
Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997 amending                        social security schemes — Exclusion of part-time workers
at mid-term Decision 91/482/EEC on the association of the                      from a supplementary occupational retirement pension
overseas countries and territories with the European Economic                  scheme — Retroactive membership — Entitlement to a
Community (OJ 1997 L 329, p. 50) — the Court, composed                         pension — Relationship between national law and Com-
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida                                             munity law)
and D.A.O. Edward (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                                                      (2000/C 102/08)
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 February 2000, in which                                        (Language of the case: German)
it has ruled:
1. Examination of the first ten questions submitted has disclosed no           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Decision                             in the European Court Reports)
     97/803/EC of 24 November 1997 amending at mid-term
     Decision 91/482/EEC on the association of the overseas                    In Case C-50/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     countries and territories with the European Economic Com-                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesarbeitsge-
     munity.                                                                   richt Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the


title: Case C-474/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2010 — Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt district Council, F P McCann (Developments) Ltd, Younger Homes Ltd, Heron Brothers Ltd, G Small Contracts, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2010 — Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt district Council, F P McCann (Developments) Ltd, Younger Homes Ltd, Heron Brothers Ltd, G Small Contracts, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland
   (Case C-474/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/27
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt district Council, F P McCann (Developments) Ltd, Younger Homes Ltd, Heron Brothers Ltd, G Small Contracts, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd

      Defendants: Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

      Questions referred

               1.

               On the proper construction of Directive [2001/42] (1) where a State authority which prepares a plan falling within Article 3 is itself the authority charged with overall environmental responsibility in the Member State, is it open to the Member State to refuse to designate under Article 6(3) any authority to be consulted for the purposes of Articles 5 and 6?

               2.

               On the proper construction of the Directive, where the authority preparing a plan falling within Article 3 is itself the authority charged with overall environmental responsibility in the Member State, is the Member State required to ensure that there is a consultation body which will be designated that is separate from that authority?

               3.

               On the proper construction of the directive, may the requirement in Article 6(2) to the effect that the authorities referred to in Article 6(3) and the public referred to in 6(4) be given an early and effective opportunity to express their opinion ‘within appropriate timeframes’, be transposed by rules which provide that the authority responsible for preparing the plan shall authorise the time-limit in each case within which opinions shall be expressed, or must the rules transposing the directive themselves lay down a time-limit, or different time-limits for different circumstances, within which such opinions shall be expressed?

      (1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment
   OJ L 197, p. 30


title: Case T-150/01: Action brought on 2 July 2001 by Cristiano Sebastiani against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 245/30               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.9.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By the present action the applicant, is challenging the appoint-        Applicant for the Com-        Bruno Heim and Franz Gustav
                                                                        munity trade mark:            Andersson
ing authority’s refusal to acknowledge the occupational origin
of a disease which, according to the applicant himself, was             The Community trade           Figurative mark ‘DockerS by Gerli’
caused by having to carry and lift, as part of his duties, loads        mark concerned:               — Application No 22.129 for
of a certain weight.                                                                                goods in Class 25
                                                                        Proprietor of the right to    Levi Strauss & Co.
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                        the trade mark or sign
                                                                        asserted by way of oppo-
—     the allegedly incomprehensible nature of the Medical
                                                                        sition in the opposition
      Committee’s findings;
                                                                        proceedings:
—     infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and           Trade mark or sign            French and Swedish figurative
      Article 3(2) of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of        asserted by way of oppo-      marks ‘DOCKERS’ registered for
      the European Communities against the Risk of Accident             sition in the opposition      goods in Class 25
      and of Occupational Disease, and failure to observe the           proceedings:
      duty of care and the principle of proportionality;
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the application for
—     breach of the procedure laid down in Article 21 of the            sition Division:              registration of the Community
      abovementioned rules.                                                                           trade mark
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal and con-
                                                                        Appeal:                       firmation of the rejection of the
                                                                                application for registration of the
                                                                                Community trade mark
Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Bruno Heim and Franz                   Grounds of claim:             — infringement of Articles 34
Gustav Andersson against Office for the Harmonization                                                     and 35          of Regulation
 of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                  No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                — infringement of Article 8(2)(c)
                                                                                of Regulation No 40/94 and
                        (Case T-149/01)
                                                                                Rule      8     of  Regulation
                                                                                No 2868/95 (2);
                        (2001/C 245/48)                                                               — breach of the concept of ‘risk
                                                                                of confusion’
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                 application was drafted: Spanish)                          Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                            1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                  Community trade mark(OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3 July 2001 by Bruno Heim and Franz Gustav Andersson,
both residing in Germany, represented by Juan José Carreño
Moreno.
                                                                        Action brought on 2 July 2001 by Cristiano Sebastiani
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the                                     (Case T-150/01)
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
      marks and designs (OHIM)) of 4 April 2001 in the                                           (2001/C 245/49)
      proceedings in R 588/199-3 dismissing the appeal against
      the decision to refuse to register the figurative mark
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      ‘DockerS by Gerli’ as a Community trade mark for goods
      in Class 25; and
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     order a new decision annulling the preceding decision and         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      granting Community trade mark registration application            European Communities on 2 July 2001 by Cristiano Sebastiani,
      No 22.129 ‘DockerS by Gerli’ for goods in Class 25 of             residing in Brussels represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
      the international classification, of which the applicants         Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
      are the proprietors.                                              Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Removal from the Register of Cases T-31/97 to T-36/97,
                                                                        T-45/97, T-78/97, T-79/97, T-82/97, T-88/97 to T-98/97,
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 3 August        T-100/97 to T-105/97, T-114/97 to T-120/97, T-129/97,
      2000 inasmuch as it does not acknowledge that the                 T-133/97, T-135/97 to T-138/97, T-150/97 to T-153/97,
      applicant’s administrative status is irregular and refuses        T-157/97, T-158/97, T-174/97, T-180/97, T-208/97 and
      to compensate him for material and non-material damage                                       T-209/97 (1)
      suffered by him
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                      (2001/C 245/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant challenges the decision to bring to a close the           By order of 12 June 2001, the President of the Court of First
administrative inquiry concerning the duties carried out by the         Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
applicant, inasmuch as that decision rejects his request for a          removal from the Register of Cases T-31/97 to T-36/97,
finding that his administrative status is irregular and to be           T-45/97, T-78/97, T-79/97, T-82/97, T-88/97 to T-98/97,
compensated for material and non-material damage suffered               T-100/97 to T-105/97, T-114/97 to T-120/97, T-129/97,
by him. That inquiry shows that the arrangements had broken             T-133/97, T-135/97 to T-138/97, T-150/97 to T-153/97,
down both as to the allocation and the execution of tasks               T-157/97, T-158/97, T-174/97, T-180/97, T-208/97 and
entrusted to the applicant.                                             T-209/97, Francisco Fernandez Ruiz and Others v Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.97, C 142 of 10.5.97, C 166 of 31.5.97, C 181
—     breach of the obligation to provide reasons;                          of 14.6.97, C 199 of 28.6.97, C 212 of 12.7.97, C 228 of
                                                                            26.7.97, C 271 of 6.9.97 et C 7 of 10.1.98.
—     manifest error of assessment;
—     breach of the principle of sound administration;
—     breach of the rights of the defence.
                                                                               Removal from the Register of Case T-190/99 (1)
       Removal from the Register of Case T-258/93 (1)                                            (2001/C 245/52)
                        (2001/C 245/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        By order of 4 April 2001, the President of the Fifth Chamber
By order of 14 May 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber            (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the            European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                   Register of Case T-190/99, Sniace S.A. v Commission of the
Register of Case T-258/93, H&R Ecroyd Limited v Council                 European Communities.
of the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
(1) OJ C 165 of 2.7.92.


title: Case T-543/13: Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Three-N-Products/OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/33

         Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Three-N-Products/OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR)
   (Case T-543/13)
   2013/C 367/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Colombo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No. R 638/2012-4 dated 25 July 2013 in its entirety and, consequently, reject the registration of the opposite application PRANAYUR;

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd;

               —

               Order Munindra Holding B.V. to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRANAYUR’ for goods in classes 5 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 7 170 095

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘AYUR’ and figurative marks containing the word element ‘Ayur’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-13/06: Action brought on  11 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/21

         Action brought on 11 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-13/06)
   (2006/C 48/39)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafillou, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by imposing VAT on services which consist in the provision of a vehicle-breakdown service, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive; (1)

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that although the Greek body ELPA (Elliniki Leskhi Aftokinitou kai Periigiseon; Automobile & Touring Club of Greece) which provides roadside assistance is not subject to the insurance directives, it engages in insurance activity for the purposes of Article 13B(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive.
   The Commission relies on the other language versions of the directive and also:

               —

               the principle of neutrality of VAT, which requires the same activity to be taxed in the same way, irrespective of the person carrying it out;

               —

               the fact that in case-law the term ‘insurance’ (Case C-349/96 CPP) is construed as covering vehicle-breakdown services;

               —

               the independence of the tax provisions vis-à-vis other Community provisions (insurance directives);

               —

               the fact that roadside assistance by insurers is subject to the Insurance Directive 73/239 (as amended by Directive 84/641).

      (1)  OJ No L 145, 13.6.1977, p.1.