title: Case C-173/12 P: Order of the Court of 17 January 2013 — Verenigde Douaneagenten BVv European Commission (Appeal — Article 220(2) of the Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Incorrect presentation of the facts — Import of raw cane sugar)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/10

         Order of the Court of 17 January 2013 — Verenigde Douaneagenten BVv European Commission
   (Case C-173/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 220(2) of the Customs Code - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Incorrect presentation of the facts - Import of raw cane sugar)
   2013/C 108/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Verenigde Douaneagenten BV (represented by: S. Moolenaar, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Burggraaf and L. Keppenne, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 February 2012 in Case T-32/11 Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed in part the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6754 final of 1 October 2010 finding that there should be post clearance recovery of import duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REC 02/09)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Verenigde Douaneagenten BV are ordered to pay costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


4.11.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Assumption of duties by new Judges of the Court of                      Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on
                              Justice                                                         10 October 2000
                        (2000/C 316/01)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/03)
Following their appointment as Judges of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities by decision of the
                                                                        The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
representatives of the Governments of the Member States of
                                                                        the following decisions at its meeting on 10 October 2000:
the European Communities of 26 July 2000 (1), for the period
from 7 October 2000 to 6 October 2006, Mr von Bahr, Mr da
Cunha Rodrigues and Mr Timmermans took their oaths before
the Court on 6 October 2000.
                                                                        Assignment of Judges von Bahr, da Cunha Rodrigues and
Following their appointment as Advocates General of the                 Timmermans
Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of
the representatives of the Governments of the Member States
of the European Communities of 26 July 2000 (1), for the                The Court decided to assign Judges von Bahr and Timmermans
period from 7 October 2000 to 6 October 2006, Mr Tizzano,               to the Fourth and Fifth Chambers and Judge da Cunha
Mr Geelhoed and Ms Stix-Hackl took their oaths before the               Rodrigues to the Third and Sixth Chambers.
Court on 6 October 2000.
(1) OJ L 199 of 5.8.2000, p. 81.
                                                                        Appointment of Presidents of Chambers
                                                                        In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
                                                                        Court has appointed for a period of one year starting on
                                                                        7 October 2000:
      Election of the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        —    Judge Wathelet as President of the First Chamber,
                        (2000/C 316/02)
                                                                        —    Judge Skouris as President of the Second Chamber,
At their meeting on 10 October 2000, the Judges of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities elected Judge
Rodrı́guez Iglesias as President of the Court of Justice pursuant       —    Judge Gulmann as President of the Third and Sixth
to Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from               Chambers,
7 October 2000 to 6 October 2003.
                                                                        —    Judge La Pergola as President of the Fourth and Fifth
                                                                             Chamber.


title: Case C-38/10: Action brought on 22 January 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/18

         Action brought on 22 January 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-38/10)
   2010/C 80/33
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and G. Braga, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by adopting and maintaining in force the legislative provisions contained in Articles 76A, 76B and 76C of the Portuguese Corporation Tax Code, by virtue of which, in the case of the transfer of the registered office and effective centre of management of a Portuguese undertaking to another Member State or of the cessation of activities in Portugal of a permanent establishment or of the transfer of its assets in Portugal to another Member State:

                           —

                           the basis of assessment for the year in which that event takes place includes all unrealised capital gains relating to the assets in question, whereas unrealised capital gains relating to exclusively national transactions are not included in the basis of assessment;

                           —

                           the members of a company transferring its registered office and effective centre of management out of Portugal are subject to taxation based on the difference between the value of the company’s liquid assets (calculated at the date of the transfer and at market prices) and the cost price of the respective shareholdings,

                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that those articles of the Corporation Tax Code may constitute an impediment to the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU.
   In accordance with that Portuguese legislation, unrealised capital gains are taxed only when a company transfers its registered office and effective centre of management out of Portuguese territory or when it transfers individual assets to a permanent establishment in another Member State, whereas similar transfers of the registered office within Portuguese territory or of assets from the principal place of business to a branch in the same Member State do not entail any immediate tax consequences.
   The Commission does not challenge the Member States’ rights to tax capital gains made by a person who, as a resident taxpayer, has been subject to taxation on his worldwide income. None the less, the Commission considers that the Portuguese legislation must apply the same rule and that the chargeable events giving rise to tax obligations must be the same, in particular, the realisation of the asset or any factor necessitating an adjustment of depreciation, whether the registered office, effective centre of management or assets are transferred out of Portuguese territory or whether they remain there.
   The Commission considers that companies must have the right to transfer their registered office or individual assets to another Member State without being subject to excessively complex and burdensome procedures, there being, in its view, no justification for the immediate charging of taxes on unrealised capital gains when a Portuguese company transfers its registered office or effective centre of management to another Member State or when a permanent establishment ceases activity in Portuguese territory or transfers its assets from Portugal to another Member State, if that kind of taxation is not found in comparable national situations.
   The need to ensure that the rights of certain interested persons, in particular, the rights of creditors, minority shareholders and the tax authorities, receive special protection has to be guaranteed, but in accordance with the principle of proportionality, as interpreted by the Court of Justice.
   In that regard, the Portuguese Republic could, for example, determine the value of the unrealised capital gains which it seeks to keep within its fiscal sovereignty, if that did not mean that the tax was immediately payable and if it did not involve other conditions attaching to the deferment of payment.
   The objective of ensuring effective fiscal supervision and combating tax avoidance, while legitimate, could also be attained by less restrictive means, using the mechanisms provided by Council Directive 77/799/EC (1) of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation, or by Council Directive 2008/55/EC (2) of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures.
   In the Commission’s view, the Portuguese legislation goes beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objectives pursued, that is to say, to ensure the effectiveness of the tax system. In consequence, the Commission considers that the Portuguese legislation must apply the same rule whether the registered office, effective centre of management or assets are transferred out of Portuguese territory or whether they remain there: the tax must be charged only after the increase in the value of the assets has been realised.

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 150, p. 28


title: Case C-223/12 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2012 by the Republic of Austria against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08 Land Burgenland and Republic of Austria v European Commission

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/17

         Appeal brought on 14 May 2012 by the Republic of Austria against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08 Land Burgenland and Republic of Austria v European Commission
   (Case C-223/12 P)
   2012/C 194/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Land Burgenland

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 in Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08;

               —

               give final judgment itself in the matter and annul Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32) and order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

               —

               in the alternative to the second head of claim above, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in line with the legal assessment contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice, and reserve its decision on costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal the appellant challenges the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2012 in Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08 by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action against Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland.
   The appellant submits two grounds of appeal:
   1.   Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it was determined that the Commission did not err in law in its evaluation of the offers by failing to consider the risks arising for the Land Burgenland from the Ausfallhaftung (deficiency liability)

   The General Court wrongly relies on case-law that is not applicable to the present case or — inasmuch as it is applicable, at least in principle — is inconsistent with the General Court’s considerations.
   The General Court moreover failed to consider other case-law that is inconsistent with its considerations.
   Lastly, the General Court erred in taking the view that the risks arising from the Ausfallhaftung could not be taken into account, even though the Ausfallhaftung constitutes existing and thus lawful aid.
   2.   Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it was determined that the Commission did not err in law in finding that neither the outcome nor the length of the procedure before the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA) justified the sale of Bank Burgenland to Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung

   The General Court considered the Commission’s conclusion that there was no indication that the FMA would forbid the purchase by the consortium to be correct, but erred in proceeding on the assumption that the information supplied by the appellant had not been relevant to the FMA approval process and had not been taken into account by the FMA.
   The General Court also overlooked specific evidence adduced by the appellant when it found that there was no indication that the length of the FMA procedure had seriously jeopardised the chances of privatising Bank Burgenland.
   Lastly, the General Court applied the wrong standard of assessment and review.


title: Case T-293/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Lofaro v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Temporary staff — Time-limit for complaint — Date of bringing of complaint — Receipt by the Administration — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Lofaro v Commission
   (Case T-293/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Temporary staff - Time-limit for complaint - Date of bringing of complaint - Receipt by the Administration - Principle of legal certainty)
   (2009/C 44/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Alessandro Lofaro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

      Respondent: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Hermann, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of 24 May 2007 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) in Joined Cases F-27/06 and F-75/06 Lofaro v Commission (not yet published in the ECR) seeking the setting aside of that order
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alessandro Lofaro to bear his own costs and pay the Commission's costs before the Court of First Intance.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Case C-531/12 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Joined Cases T-168/10 and T-572/10 European Commission v SEMEA and Commune de Millau

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/6

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Joined Cases T-168/10 and T-572/10 European Commission v SEMEA and Commune de Millau
   (Case C-531/12 P)
   2013/C 32/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Commune de Millau, Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) (represented by: F. Bleykasten, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 September 2012,

         Giving judgment itself,

               —

               declare that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application brought by the Commission against the Commune de Millau, in Case T-572/10;

               —

               refer the Commission back to appeal before the competent French courts;

               —

               declare inadmissible the application brought by the Commission against the SEMEA, in Case T-168/10;

         As to the substance,

               —

               state that the obligation which is the basis for the Commission’s complaint is time-barred under French law;

               —

               reject the Commission’s claims directed against the Commune de Millau and against the SEMEA;

         In the alternative,

               —

               rule that the Commission has infringed the principles of legal certainty and of sound administration;

               —

               rule that the European Union has thus incurred non-contractual liability vis-à-vis the Commune de Millau and the SEMEA;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Commune de Millau and SEMEA a principal sum corresponding to EUR 41 012, plus interest and ancillary sums calculated according to French law and running until the date of the judgment to be delivered;

         In any event,

               —

               declare that the costs of the present proceedings are to be borne by the Commission

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants raise four grounds of appeal against the General Court’s judgment.
   Firstly, the Commune de Millau claims that the General Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application brought against it. According to the appellant, it is impossible for a legal person governed by French law to conclude an arbitration clause by means of a stipulation for the benefit of a third party. In the appellant’s view, there is no convention under which the Commune de Millau could have stipulated an arbitration clause for the benefit of the Commission.
   Secondly, the SEMEA claims that, by transferring its assets and liabilities to a partner in the form of a legal person, still solvent and governed by public law (the Commune de Millau), while it itself was in a state of insolvency, it legitimately liquidated its rights and obligations of a social nature.
   Thirdly, the appellants argue that the General Court erred in law in so far as it failed to comply with the legal provision applicable as regards limitation of the action. The disputed claim arose during trade between the SEMEA and the Commission. Notwithstanding the administrative nature of the contract between the SEMEA and the Commission, the rule on limitation applicable in the present case is, according to the appellants, Article 189a, now Article 110-4 of the French Code du Commerce (Commercial Code). The appellants therefore submit that the Commission’s claim is time-barred.
   Lastly, the appellants criticise the General Court for not having acknowledged the Commission’s liability, even though its failure to act, for 12 years, to recover its claim, constitutes negligence and infringes Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The significant amount of interest claimed by the Commission is also linked to the Commission’s failure to recover its claim, so that there is indeed a causal link between the alleged harm and the Commission’s conduct. The appellants thus claim that the harm is linked to the impossibility for them of taking measures in due time to address the Commission’s complaint.


title: Case C-371/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam (Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than that in which it is incorporated — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Taxation of unrealised capital gains relating to the assets of a company transferring its place of management between Member States — Determination of the amount of tax at the time of the transfer of the place of management — Immediate recovery of the tax — Proportionality)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam
   (Case C-371/10) (1)

   (Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than that in which it is incorporated - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Taxation of unrealised capital gains relating to the assets of a company transferring its place of management between Member States - Determination of the amount of tax at the time of the transfer of the place of management - Immediate recovery of the tax - Proportionality)
   2012/C 32/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: National Grid Indus BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) — National tax legislation providing for immediate taxation on exit for companies transferring their place of management or assets to another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A company incorporated under the law of a Member State which transfers its place of effective management to another Member State, without that transfer affecting its status of a company of the former Member State, may rely on Article 49 TFEU for the purpose of challenging the lawfulness of a tax imposed on it by the former Member State on the occasion of the transfer of the place of effective management.

               2.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as:

                           —

                           not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the amount of tax on unrealised capital gains relating to a company’s assets is fixed definitively, without taking account of decreases or increases in value which may occur subsequently, at the time when the company, because of the transfer of its place of effective management to another Member State, ceases to obtain profits taxable in the former Member State; it makes no difference that the unrealised capital gains that are taxed relate to exchange rate gains which cannot be reflected in the host Member State under the tax system in force there;

                           —

                           precluding legislation of a Member State which prescribes the immediate recovery of tax on unrealised capital gains relating to assets of a company transferring its place of effective management to another Member State at the very time of that transfer.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 1996 in Case C-468/93 (reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden): Gemeente Emmen v. Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B (h) and Article 4 (3) (b) - Supply of building land)

text:
22 . 6 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 180/9
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs .                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Third Chamber)
(M OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                                                of 28 March 1996
                                                                         in Case C-99/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                         Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz ): Robert Birkenbeul GmbH
                                                                                & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Koblenz ( J )
                                                                              (Anti-dumping duties on imports of electric motors)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/ 18 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     (Language of tbe case: German)
                           ( Fifth Chamber )
                        of 28 March 1996                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-468/93 (reference to the Court for a preliminary
ruling from the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden ): Gemeente
                                                                         In Case C-99/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      Emmen v. Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen ( 1 )
                                                                         the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz
(Sixth VA TDirective — Article 13B (h) and Article 4 (3) (b)
                                                                         ( Finance Court, Rhineland-Palatinate ), Germany for a
                  — Supply of building land)                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                             ( 96/C 180/ 17 )                            court between Robert Birkenbeul GmbH & Co . KG v .
                                                                         Hauptzollamt Koblenz on the interpretation of Commission
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 3019/86 of 30 September 1986
                 (Language of the case: Dutcb)                           imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
                                                                         standardized multiphase electric motors having an output of
                                                                         more than 0,75 kW but not more than 75 kW, originating in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia , the German Democratic
           published in the European Court Reports)                      Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the USSR ( OJ No
                                                                         L 280, 1986 , p . 68 ), and of Council Regulation ( EEC )
In Case C-468/93 , reference to the Court under Article 177              No 864/87 of 23 March 1987 imposing a definitive
of the EC Treaty by the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden                        anti-dumping duty on imports of standardized multiphase
 ( Regional Court of Appeal, Leeuwarden ) (Netherlands ) for             electric motors having an output of more than 0,75 kW but
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              not more than 75 kW, originating in Bulgaria,
court between Gemeente Emmen and Belastingdienst Grote                    Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic,
 Ondernemingen — on the interpretation of the combined                   Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union, and definitively
provisions of Article 13B ( h ) and Article 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth   collecting the amounts secured as provisional duties ( OJ No
 Council Directive ( 77/38 8/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the                 L 83 , 1987, p . 1 ), the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to               J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber,
turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax:                       J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; N.
 uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) — the          Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
 Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of D. A. O. Edward,                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                         28 March 1996 in which it ruled :
 President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet,
Judges; Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar: H. von                 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3019/86 of
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 March                 30 September 1986 imposing a provisional anti-dumping
  1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                      duty on imports of standardized multiphase electric motors
                                                                          having an output of more than 0,75 k W but not more than
                                                                          75 kW, originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the
 It is for the Member States to define the concept of 'building           German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania
 land' within the meaning of the combined provisions of                   and the USSR, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 864/87 of
 Article 13B (h) and Article 4 (3) (b) of the Sixth Council               23 March 1 987 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
 Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the                             imports of standardized multiphase electric motors having
 harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to               an output of more than 0,75 kW but not more than 75 kW,
 turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax:                       originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German
 uniform basis ofassessment. It therefore does not fall to the            Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Soviet
  Court to specify what degree of improvement land which                  Union, and definitively collecting the amounts secured as
 has not been built on must exhibit in order to be categorized            provisional duties, must be interpreted as applying only to
 as building land within the meaning of that Directive.                   imports of standardized, multiphase electric motors which
                                                                          are complete or finished.
  (!) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .


title: Case F-123/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 January 2008 — De Fays v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/71

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 January 2008 — De Fays v Commission
   (Case F-123/07)
   (2008/C 64/119)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.


title: Case T-479/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2017 — Kendrion v European Union (Non-contractual liability — Precision in the application — Admissibility — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Reasonable period within which a judgment must be delivered — Material damage — Interest on the amount of the unpaid fine — Bank guarantee charges — Non-material damage — Causal link)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2017 — Kendrion v European Union
   (Case T-479/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Precision in the application - Admissibility - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Reasonable period within which a judgment must be delivered - Material damage - Interest on the amount of the unpaid fine - Bank guarantee charges - Non-material damage - Causal link))
   (2017/C 078/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kendrion NV (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: initially, P. Glazener and T. Ottervanger, and, subsequently, T. Ottervanger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially, A. Placco and, subsequently, J. Inghelram and E. Beysen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, S. Noë and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the duration of the proceedings, before the General Court, in the case that gave rise to the judgment of 16 November 2011, Kendrion v Commission (T-54/06, not published, EU:T:2011:667).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay damages of EUR 588 769.18 to Kendrion NV for the material damage suffered by that company as a result of the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 16 November 2011, Kendrion v Commission (T-54/06, not published, EU:T:2011:667);

               2.

               Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay damages of EUR 6 000 to Kendrion for the non-material damage suffered by that company as a result of the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time in Case T-54/06;

               3.

               Orders that each of the heads of damages referred to in points 1 and 2 above be increased by default interest, to be calculated as from the delivery of the present judgment until payment in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Order the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Kendrion in connection with the plea of inadmissibility which gave rise to the order of 6 January 2015, Kendrion v European Union (T-479/14, not published, EU:T:2015:2);

               6.

               Orders Kendrion, on the one hand, and the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the other, to bear their own respective costs relating to the action which has given rise to the present judgment;

               7.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-304/10: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-304/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/24
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.09.2010.


title: Case T-654/16: Action brought on 13 September 2016 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/19

         Action brought on 13 September 2016 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission
   (Case T-654/16)
   (2016/C 428/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 2136 of 11 July 2016, rejecting a request for a partial interim review limited to dumping aspects with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the applicant’s costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed Article 17(3) in conjunction with Article 11(3) and Article 11(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51.


title: Case C-62/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Germany) — Peter Gauweiler and Others v Deutscher Bundestag (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Economic and monetary policy — Decisions of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s outright monetary transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets — Articles 119 TFEU and 127 TFEU — Powers conferred on the ECB and the European System of Central Banks — Monetary policy transmission mechanism — Maintenance of price stability — Proportionality — Article 123 TFEU — Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Germany) — Peter Gauweiler and Others v Deutscher Bundestag
   (Case C-62/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Economic and monetary policy - Decisions of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s outright monetary transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets - Articles 119 TFEU and 127 TFEU - Powers conferred on the ECB and the European System of Central Banks - Monetary policy transmission mechanism - Maintenance of price stability - Proportionality - Article 123 TFEU - Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area))
   (2015/C 279/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverfassungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Complainants/applicant: Peter Gauweiler, Bruno Bandulet, Wilhelm Hankel, Wilhelm Nölling, Albrecht Schachtschneider, Joachim Starbatty, Roman Huber and Others, Johann Heinrich von Stein and Others, Fraktion DIE LINKE im Deutschen Bundestag

      Respondent: Deutscher Bundestag

      Joined party: Bundesregierung

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 119 TFEU, 123(1) TFEU and 127(1) and (2) TFEU and Articles 17 to 24 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as permitting the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) to adopt a programme for the purchase of government bonds on secondary markets, such as the programme announced in the press release to which reference is made in the minutes of the 340th meeting of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on 5 and 6 September 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case C-146/08 P: Order of the Court of 26 March 2009 — Efkon AG v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Directive 2004/52/EC — Interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/14

         Order of the Court of 26 March 2009 — Efkon AG v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-146/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 2004/52/EC - Interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
   2009/C 205/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Efkon AG (represented by: M. Novak, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and A. Neergaard, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Karlsson, Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and G. Braun, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2008 in Case T-298/04 Efkon v Parliament and Council, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action seeking annulment of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 124) — Requirement of being individually concerned by the contested act — Right to be heard before a court — Length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Efkon AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.


title: Case C-104/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 24 February 2010 — Patrick Kelly v National University of Ireland

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 24 February 2010 — Patrick Kelly v National University of Ireland
   (Case C-104/10)
   2010/C 134/29
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Patrick Kelly

      Defendant: National University of Ireland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/80/EC (1) entitle an applicant for vocational training, who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training because the principle of equal treatment was not applied to him or her, to information on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training so that the applicant can ‘establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’?

               2.

               Does Article 4 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) entitle an applicant for vocational training who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training ‘on the basis of the same criteria’ and discriminated against ‘on grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training?

               3.

               Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/73/EC (3) prohibiting ‘direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex’ in relation to ‘access’ to vocational training entitle an applicant for vocational training who claims to have been discriminated against ‘on the grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training?

               4.

               Does the nature of the obligation under Article 267, para. 3 TFEU differ in a Member State with an adversarial (as opposed to inquisitorial) legal system and, if so, in what respect?

               5.

               Can any entitlement to information under the aforesaid Directives be affected by the operation of national or European laws relating to confidentiality?

      (1)  Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex
   OJ L 14, p. 6

      (2)  Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions
   OJ L 39, p. 40

      (3)  Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 269, p. 15


title: Case F-47/11: Action brought on 15 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/56

         Action brought on 15 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-47/11)
   2011/C 252/123
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ. (represented by W. Bode, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the dispute

   Annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from Competition EPSO AST/100/09 and request for access to information concerning the running of the competition.

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               Order the defendant to supply the applicant with full information on the running of the competition and the various tests up to the present, including the procedure for assessing tests, including, but not limited to

                           —

                           granting access to all documents which the defendant holds concerning the participation of the applicant in that competition including documents concerning assessment of the tests taken by the applicant.

                           —

                           providing full information on how the mark (12 points) which the applicant obtained in practical test (a) was arrived at.

                           —

                           providing information on the running of the competition in general, including the number of candidates who participated in the written and oral tests; the number of candidates who passed practical test (a); the criteria established by the selection board for assessing, for example, answer keys, criteria for the awarding of points for certain parts of the various tests, or according to which criteria for assessment; the number of points obtained by other candidates in practical tests a) and b) and information as to the manner in which those points were awarded.

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 28 September 2010 and confirmatory decision of 5 April 2011, thereby allowing the applicant to continue to participate in the competition, the first stage consisting in marking the applicant’s practical test (b).

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s extra-legal costs arising as a result of the three administrative complaints and the present action.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 19 October 1995 in Case C-128/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht) Hans Hönig v. Stadt Stockach (Directive 88/166/EEC - Minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages)

text:
No C 315/8            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 11 . 95
Civile e Penale di Milano in its order for reference of                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
31 March 1994 .
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 October 1995
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .                                       in Case C-137/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the
                                                                        High Court of Justice of England and Wales ): The Queen v.
                                                                        Secretary of State for Health, ex-parte Cyril
                                                                                Richardson (')
                                                                        (Equal treatment for men and women — Exemption from
                                                                        prescription charges — Scope of Directive 79/7/EEC —
                                                                        Link with pensionable age — Temporal effects of
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   judgment)
                       ( Fourth Chamber )                                                         ( 95/C 315/ 15 )
                    of 19 October 1995
in Case C-128/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ) Hans Honig v. Stadt
                            Stockach ( ! )
(Directive 88/166/EEC — Minimum standards for the
      protection of laying hens kept in battery cages)                  In Case C-137/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Divisional Court of the Queen 's
                          ( 95/C 315/14 )
                                                                        Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and
                                                                        Wales for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                        before that court between the Queen and the Secretary of
              (Language of the case: German)                            State for Health, ex-parte Cyril Richardson — on the
                                                                        interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
                                                                        19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
        published in the European Court Reports)                        matters of social security ( OJ 1979 L 6 , p. 24 ) — the Court
                                                                        ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of
                                                                        the Chamber, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.
In Case C-128/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B.
of the EC Treaty by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht for a                  Elmer , Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               the Registrar, gave a' judgment on 19 October 1995 , in
court between Hans Honig and Stadt Stockach — on the                    which it ruled :
interpretation of Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Annex to Council
Directive 88/ 166/EEC of 7 March 1988 complying with the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 131 /86 ( annulment
of Council Directive 86/ 113/EEC of 25 March 1986 laying                 1 . Article 3 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens                     19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation
kept in battery cages ) ( OJ 1988 L 74, p. 83 ) — the Court                  of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President                   in matters of social security is to be interpreted as
of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), and J. L.                   meaning that a system such as that established by
Murray, Judges; Advocate-General : P. Leger, Registrar:                      Regulation 6 (1 ) of the National Health Service
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on                     (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 1989,
 19 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as                         exempting various categories of persons, in particular
follows :                                                                    certain old people, from prescription charges falls
                                                                             within the scope of the Directive.
Article 3 (1 ) (a) of the Annex to Council Directive
88/1 66/EEC of 7 March 1 988 complying with the judgment
of the Court of Justice in Case 131 /86 (annulment of                   2 . Article 7 (1 ) (a) of Directive 79/7/EEC does not allow a
 Council Directive 86/113/EEC of 25 March 1986 laying                        Member State which, pursuant to that provision, has set
down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens                     the pensionble age for women at 60 years and for men at
kept in battery cages) is to be interpreted as permitting                    65 years also to provide that women are be exempt from
Member States to lay down stricter national rules regarding                  prescription charges at the age of 60 and men only at the
                                                                             age of 65.
cage area for laying hens kept in battery cages.
    OJ No C 174, 25 . 6. 1                                               ^ There is no reason to limit the temporal effect of this
                                                                             judgment, so that the direct effect of Article 4 (1 ) of
                                                                             Directive 79/7/EEC may also be relied on to support
                                                                             claims for damages in respect ofperiods prior to the date


title: Case T-488/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/32

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)
   (Case T-488/08)
   (2009/C 19/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL (Tres Cantos, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 August 2008 in case R 403/2006-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 38.

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark application No 170 167 of the word mark ‘GALILEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2 157 501 of the word mark ‘GALILEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 516 799 of the figurative mark ‘powered by Galileo’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 330 084 of the figurative mark ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2 159 069 of the figurative mark ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Earlier signs protected in various Member States namely, a non-registered trade mark, a trade name, and a sign, all used in the course of trade for the specified goods and services.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition against the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as: (i) the Board of Appeal failed to carry out a global assessment of the Community trade mark concerned in relation to the word only trade marks for ‘GALILEO’; (ii) the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the Community trade mark concerned in relation to the earlier composite trade marks containing the word ‘GALILEO’; and (iii) the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods; Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to remit the case back to the Opposition Division for a finding under Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94.


title: Case T-366/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/12

         Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission
   (Case T-366/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - Act of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)
   2012/C 109/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative della Pesca (Federcoopesca) and eight other applicants whose names are mentioned in the annex to the order (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Cavasola, V. Cannizzaro and G. Micucci, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative della Pesca (Federcoopesca) and eight other applicants whose names are mentioned in the annex are to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-577/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2017 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne v European Union (Non-contractual liability — Precision of the application — Prescription — Admissibility — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Reasonable time for adjudication — Material damage — Losses sustained — Interest on the unpaid amount of the fine — Bank guarantee charges — Loss of opportunity — Non-material damage — Causal link)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2017 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne v European Union
   (Case T-577/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Precision of the application - Prescription - Admissibility - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Reasonable time for adjudication - Material damage - Losses sustained - Interest on the unpaid amount of the fine - Bank guarantee charges - Loss of opportunity - Non-material damage - Causal link))
   (2017/C 053/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH (Wieda, Germany) and Gascogne (Saint-Paul-les-Dax, France) (represented by: F. Puel, E. Durand and L. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Placco, and subsequently J. Inghelram and S. Chantre, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, V. Bottka and P. van Nuffel, Agents)

      Subject matter

   Application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the length of the proceedings before the General Court in the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 16 November 2011, Groupe Gascogne v Commission (T-72/06, not published, EU:T:2011:671), and Sachsa Verpackung v Commission (T-79/06, not published, EU:T:2011:674).

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1)

               Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay damages of EUR 47 064,33 to Gascogne by way of compensation for the material damage sustained by that company as a result of the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time in the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 16 November 2011, Groupe Gascogne v Commission (T-72/06, not published, EU:T:2011:671), and Sachsa Verpackung v Commission (T-79/06, not published, EU:T:2011:674). That compensation is to be reassessed by the application of compensatory interest as from 4 August 2014 up to the date of delivery of the present judgment, at the annual rate of inflation recorded, for the period at issue, by Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union) in the Member State in which that company is established;

               2)

               Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay damages of EUR 5 000 to Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and damages of EUR 5 000 to Gascogne by way of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by those companies respectively as a result of the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time in Cases T-72/06 and T-79/06;

               3)

               Orders that each award of compensation referred to in points (1) and (2) above be increased by default interest, as from the delivery of the present judgment up to the date of full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               4)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5)

               Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Gascogne Sack Deutschland and by Gascogne and the costs related to the inadmissibility claim which gave rise to the order of 2 February 2015, Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union (T-577/14, not published, EU:T:2015:80);

               6)

               Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne, on the one hand, and the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the other hand, to bear their own costs relating to the action giving rise to the present judgment;

               7)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014, p. 19.


title: Case C-585/12 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2012 by Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-343/06: Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland BV v European Commission

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/6

         Appeal brought on 12 December 2012 by Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-343/06: Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland BV v European Commission
   (Case C-585/12 P)
   2013/C 55/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland BV (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, W. Knibbeler, A.A.J. Pliego Selie, P. D. van den Berg, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the paragraphs of the judgment as requested in the appeal,

               —

               give final judgment and annul the contested decision or reduce the fine as requested in the appeal, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice, and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants rely upon two pleas in law. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court partially dismissed the application brought by the Appellants for the partial annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 13 September 2006 (No. C(2006) 4090 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen).
   By its first plea, the Appellants respectfully submit that the General Court committed errors of law and failed to provide sufficient or adequate reasoning in finding that the contested decision demonstrates to the requisite legal standard that the same undertaking has committed repeated infringements. The General Court also erred in law and failed to provide sufficient or adequate reasoning by concluding that the test set out in the judgment in Case T-203/01, Michelin, is met. Finally, the General Court erred in law by shifting the burden of proof to the Appellants.
   By its second plea, the Appellants respectfully submit that the General Court erred in law and failed to provide sufficient or adequate reasoning in concluding that the European Commission was entitled to include the sales of the product Mexphalte C in the calculation of the fine. The General Court furthermore erred in procedure by failing to address certain arguments put forward by the Appellants. Moreover, the General Court failed to provide sufficient or adequate reasoning in failing to address the inconsistency resulting from the fact that industrial bitumen have been excluded from the calculation of the fine. The General Court also distorted the sense of essential evidence by relying on an inaccurate reading of a crucial document to reach a conclusion on Mexphalte C which clearly cannot be deduced from this document. The General Court furthermore erred in law and failed to provide sufficient or adequate reasoning duty when reviewing the amount of the fine under the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction. Finally, the General Court committed a breach of procedure and infringed the rules governing the burden of proof in not investigating whether the European Commission had infringed the principle of equal treatment by including, in the fine on the Appellants, sales of Mexphalte C.


title: Case C-343/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Gerichtshof by order of that court of 21 July 2004 in the case of Land Oberösterreich against ČEZ a.s.

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Gerichtshof by order of that court of 21 July 2004 in the case of Land Oberösterreich against ČEZ a.s.
   (Case C-343/04)
   (2004/C 251/14)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichtshof of 21 July 2004 received at the Court Registry on 10 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Land Oberösterreich against ČEZ a.s. on the following question:
   Is the term ‘proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’ in Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels Convention’) to be interpreted as including a (preventive) action for an injunction, pursuant to Paragraph 364(2) of the Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (‘the ABGB’) (the General Civil Code), prohibiting emissions from a property located in a neighbouring State — which is not a Member State of the European Union — affecting land owned by the claimant (in this case, ionising radiation emitted from a nuclear plant in the Czech Republic)?


title: Case C-395/05: Order of the Court of 6 March 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio, Alessandro D'Antoni, Rodolfo Ramieri (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Rules of competition applicable to undertakings — Interpretation of Articles 31 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/20

         Order of the Court of 6 March 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio, Alessandro D'Antoni, Rodolfo Ramieri
   (Case C-395/05) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Rules of competition applicable to undertakings - Interpretation of Articles 31 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - Games of chance - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form - Requirement of police authorisation - Criminal penalties)
   (2007/C 96/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy)
   Criminal proceedings against
   Antonello D'Antonio, Alessandro D'Antoni, Rodolfo Ramieri
   Action
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Viterbo — Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 89 EC — National law making exercise of activity of taking bets subject to obtaining authorisation
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

               2.

               It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

               3.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

               4.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.

      (1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006.


title: Case C-203/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad na Republika Balgaria (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 April 2010 — Deputy Director of the Appeals and Enforcement Management Directorate at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency v Auto Nikolovi OOD

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad na Republika Balgaria (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 April 2010 — Deputy Director of the Appeals and Enforcement Management Directorate at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency v Auto Nikolovi OOD
   (Case C-203/10)
   2010/C 195/09
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad na Republika Balgaria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Deputy Director of the Appeals and Enforcement Management Directorate at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency

      Respondent: Auto Nikolovi OOD

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the term ‘second-hand goods’ set out in Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) also cover second-hand movable property which is not individualised (by mark, model, serial number, year of manufacture etc.) in such a way that it can be distinguished from goods of the same variety but is instead identified by generic features?

               2.

               Does the phrase ‘as defined by the Member States’ contained in Article 311(1)(1) of Council Regulation 2006/112/EC grant Member States the possibility of defining the term ‘second-hand goods’ themselves, or must the definition of this term in the directive be reproduced strictly in national law?

               3.

               Is the requirement, incorporated into national law, that second-goods be individually identified, consistent with the spirit and purpose of the definition of ‘second-hand goods’ in Community law?

               4.

               Having regard to the aims set out in recital (51) of the preamble to Council Directive 2006/112/EC, can it be concluded that the phrase ‘where those goods have been supplied to him within the Community’ contained in Article 314(1) thereof also covers the importation of second-hand goods which the taxable dealer has imported himself?

               5.

               If the arrangements under the margin scheme are also applicable to the supply of second-hand goods by a taxable dealer who has imported those goods himself, must the person from whom the taxable dealer has acquired those goods belong to one of the categories of person referred to in Article 314(a) to (d)?

               6.

               Is the list of goods contained in Article 320(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC exhaustive?

               7.

               Are the first subparagraph of Article 320(1) and Article 320(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision under which the taxable dealer’s right to deduct as input tax the VAT paid by him on the importation of second-hand goods arises and is exercised in the period during which those goods were supplied in connection with a subsequent taxable supply to which the taxable dealer applies the normal tax arrangements?

               8.

               Do Articles 314(a) to (d), the first subparagraph of Article 320(1), and Article 320(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC have direct effect and can the national court rely on them directly in a case such as the present?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 20 November 1996 in Case T-135/95: 'Z' v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Actions for annulment - Irregular absence from service - Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations - Medical certificates - Incapacity for work)

text:
No C 9/ 16            1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11 . 1 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers
                       of 19 November 1996                              of Catherine Dessoy, 31 , Rue d'Eich, against the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
in    Case    T-272/94:         Claude Brûlant     v.   European        Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the
                            Parliament ( l )                            decision of 6 September 1994, pursuant to Article 60 of
         (Officials — Promotion — Abuse ofprocess)
                                                                        the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European
                                                                        Communities, as confirmed by the decision of the
                             ( 97/C 9/28 )                              Commission of 3 April 1994 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                        complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second
                                                                        Chamber), composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W.
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                        Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 November 1996, the
In Case T-272/94 : Claude Brulant, an official of the                   operative part of which is as follows:
European Parliament, residing in Compiegne ( France ),
represented by Sylvie Deniniolle, of the Paris Bar, with an             1 . The application is dismissed.
address for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'-rue, against the European
Parliament ( Agents: Manfred Peter and Jannis Pantalis ) —              2 . The parties shall bear their own costs.
application for annulment of the decision of the
Parliament of 30 September 1993 relating to the filling of              (M OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 , p . 23 .
the post advertised in vacancy Notice No 7262 ( Post II/A/
 1933 ), the decision of 15 November 1993 rejecting the
applicant's candidature and the decision of 28 April 1994,
expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court
of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of C. P.
Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; H.                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 November 1996,
                                                                                of 21 November 1996
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                        in Case T-53/96: Syndicat des producteurs de viande
                                                                        bovine       de la    coordination         rurale and Others      v.
 1 . The decision of the Parliament of 30 September 1993
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities 0 )
     relating to the filling of the post advertised in vacancy
     notice No 7262 (Post IIIA/1933) is annulled.                        (Common agricultural policy — Emergency measures for
                                                                        protection of public health — Action for damages —
                                                                                Unforeseeable damage — Inadmissibility)
2 . The decision rejecting the applicant 's candidature to
     that post is also annulled.                                                                    ( 97/C 9/30 )
 3 . The Parliament is ordered to pay all the costs.                                     (Language of the case: French)
 (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 , p . 31 .                             In Case T-53/96 : Syndicat des producteurs de viande
                                                                         bovine de la coordination rurale, having its headquarters
                                                                         at l'Isle Jourdain ( France ), Syndicat des producteurs de lait
                                                                        de la coordination rurale, having its headquarters at l'Isle
                                                                        Jourdain ( France ), Philippe de Villiers, residing at
                                                                        Aubretières ( France ), represented by Alexandre Varaut, of
                                                                        the Paris Bar, against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities        ( Agents:       Gerard Berscheid, James
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Macdonald Flett and Ulrich Wölker ) — application for an
                       of 20 November 1996
                                                                         award of damages pursuant to Article 178 and the second
                                                                         paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty — the Court of
 in Case T-135/95 : 'Z' v. Commission of the European                    First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-
                           Communities ( J )                             Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.
                                                                        Jung, Registrar, has given an order on 21 November 1996 ,
 (Officials — Actions for annulment — Irregular absence                  in which it :
 from service — Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations
        — Medical certificates — Incapacity for work)
                                                                         1 . Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
                              ( 97/C 9/29 )
                                                                         2 . Orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                  (Language of the case: French)                              costs .
 In Case T-135/95 : 'Z', an official of the Commission of                (!) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 , p . 35 .
 the European Communities, residing at Torredelmar,
 Spain, represented by J. F. Nerven, of the Brussels Bar,


title: Case T-740/16: Action brought on 25 October 2016 — Stips v Commission

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/21

         Action brought on 25 October 2016 — Stips v Commission
   (Case T-740/16)
   (2016/C 475/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Adolf Stips (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that

               —

               the European Commission is ordered to make good in full the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the delay encountered in the organisation of the 2013 re-grading exercise;

               —

               in any event, the European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the loss which he suffered which is attributable exclusively to the disregard by the Commission of its duty of sound administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant argues, firstly, that the list of re-graded staff was not adopted by the Commission within a reasonable period, that is to say before 31 December 2013. He adds, secondly, that the material harm which is allegedly suffered is real and quantifiable and, thirdly, that there is a causal link between the Commission’s administrative error and the loss which he suffered.


title: Case C-252/06: Action brought on  6 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/27

         Action brought on 6 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-252/06)
   (2006/C 178/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and N. Yerrell)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2002/92/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, or, in any event, by not communicating these provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the Directive expired on 15 January 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 9, 2003, p. 3.