title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza by order of that court of 22 April 1995 in criminal proceedings pending before that court against Luciano Arcaro (Case C-168/95)

text:
No C 208/6             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
Appeal brought on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the                   'S -Hertogenbosch        ( Regional     Court    of    Appeal,
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                   's-Hertogenbosch ), of 18 May 1995 , which was received at
28 March 1995 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First                 the Court Registry on 31 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/94                     in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J.
between Frederic Daffix and the Commission of the                        Scheres c.s . v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/
                    European Communities                                 Ondernemingen te Roermond ( Head of the Undertakings
                       ( Case C-166/95 P)                                Unit of the Revenue Office, Roermond ) on the following
                                                                         question:
                           ( 95/C 208/ 12 )
                                                                         should Article 9 of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 1 995               meaning that the place where a veterinary surgeon supplies
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               his services as such should be deemed to be the place where
European Communities in Case T-12/94 between Frederic                    he has established his business or has a fixed establishment
Daffix and the Commission of the European Communities                    from which the services are supplied or, in the absence of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   such a place of business or fixed establishment, the place
Communities on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the                      where he has his permanent address or usually resides, or
European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                            should that Article be interpreted as meaning that the place
Gouloussis, of its Legal Service , acting as Agent, assisted by          where a veterinary surgeon supplies his services as such is
Benoit Cambier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                  located elsewhere, namely at the place where those services
service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis,                  are physically carried out or at the place where the customer
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 has established his business or has a fixed establishment to
                                                                          which the service is supplied or, in the absence of such a
The appellant claims that the Court should :                              place, the place where he has his permanent address or
                                                                          usually resides ?
— set aside the judgment given on 28 March 1995 by the
     Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     European Communities in Case T-12/94 ('),
 — grant the form of order sought by the Commission
     before the Court of First Instance and , as a consequence,
     reject the claims of Frederic Daffix,
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
 — make an appropriate order as to costs .                                Circondariale di Vicenza by order of that court of 22 April
                                                                           1995 in criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                                against Luciano Arcaro
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case C-168/95 )
 — inadmissibility of the plea in law upheld by the Court of                                        ( 95/C 208/14 )
     First Instance : the Court of First Instance was wrong in
     considering that, in the present case, the plea alleging
     that the statement of reasons was inadequate could be                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     regarded as involving a question of public policy and be              European Communities by an order of the Pretura
     held to be admissible even though it was out of time,                 Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Vicenza, of
                                                                           22 April 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 — the plea in law upheld by the Court of First Instance is                30 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
     unfounded .                                                           proceedings pending before that court against Luciano
                                                                           Arcaro on the following questions :
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 11 .
                                                                           1 . Does point 8 (') of the present order for reference put
                                                                               forward a correct interpretation of the Community
                                                                               Directives 76/464/EEC ( 2 ) and 83/513/EEC (*) which
                                                                               Legislative Decree No 133/1992 aims to implement ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,                  2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, may, in the
 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 18 May                          light of a correct interpretation of Community law,
 1995 in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and                  direct effect be given to provisions of Community law —
 J. Scheres c.s. v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/                            while at the same time conflicting provisions of national
                 Ondernemingen te Roermond                                     law are disapplied — even though the position of the
                                                                               individual may thereby be impaired ?
                          ( Case C-167/95 )
                             ( 95/C 208/ 13 )
                                                                           3 . If question 2 is answered in the negative, what other
                                                                               steps may be taken, in the light of a correct
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        interpretation of Community law, in order to secure the
 European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechthsof,                        repeal under the national legal system of provisions
 ---pagebreak---  12 . 8 . 95                        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/7
         which conflict with those of Community law in cases                           Coordination, and by Gloria Calvo Diaz, Abogado del
         where , if direct effect were given to the latter, the                        Estado, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
         position of the individual would be impaired ?                                Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard E.
                                                                                Servais .
 ( l ) ' 8 . In the court's opinion, there is reason to doubt whether the
              provisions mentioned at point 7 ( 1 ) comply with the                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
              Community Directives :
              ( a ) by virtue of the rules complained of, the system
                     introduced by Legislative Decree No 1 33/ 1 992 ( express ,       — uphold the application and annul the contested decision,
                     prior and conditional authorization for a fixed term )                and
                     does not apply to the majority of existing plants;
              ( b ) all the Community Directives which Legislative Decree
                     No 133/1992 purports to implement ( and in respect of             — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
                     which the time limit for implementation has long since
                     elapsed ) appear instead to require — clearly and
                     indisputably — express, prior and conditional                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                     authorization for a fixed term in respect of all discharges
                     falling within their purview. In that connection ,
                     consideration should be given to the following                    — Infringement of the Treaty or of any rule of law relating
                     provisions by way of example :                                       to its application : infringement of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the
                     ( bl ) Article 1 ( 2 ) ( d ) of Directive 76/464/EEC , which         EC Treaty: the fact that an aid cannot be considered
                            defines the concept of 'discharge ' without drawing           automatically to be compatible as regional aid because it
                            any distinction between new and existing                      is ad hoc and does not form part of a programme of
                            discharges ; Article 3 of that Directive, which               regional aid does not preclude its being classified as
                            provides that 'all discharges . . . which are liable to       compatible regional aid . This case concerns aid granted
                            contain ' one of the substances covered by the                by the Spanish public authorities to an undertaking
                            Directive ( and consequently by Legislative Decree
                            No 133/1992 ) are subject to express , prior and              which intends to locate in a Spanish region classified as a
                            conditional authorization for a fixed term;                   less-favoured area . It is aid for basic investment whose
                     ( b2 ) Article 3 of Directive 83/51 3/EEC , concerning               overall intensity is well below the limit laid down in the
                            cadmium discharges, which provides that all                   Commission's Decision of 28 May 1987 regarding the
                            discharges containing cadmium are subject to                  general regional aid scheme in Spain for the province of
                            express, prior and conditional authorization for a            Teruel ('). Although there was no general regional aid
                            fixed term, with no distinction being drawn                   scheme for the Autonomous Community of Aragon duly
                            between existing discharges and new discharges                authorized by the Commission, the aid granted to Piezas
                            ( the latter being distinguished only for the separate        y Rodajes SA ( PYRSA ) observed the conditions laid
                            purpose referred to in Article 4 ( 1 )).'
(*) '7. It is the court's view that the following provisions of                           down in Decree 80/1988 of the Diputacion General de
              Legislative Decree No 133/1992 merit consideration :                        Aragon ( Government of the Autonomous Community
             — Article 7(1 ) with respect only to the words 'containing                   of Aragon ) on economic aid to small and medium-sized
                    the dangerous substances for which emission thresholds                enterprises in the Autonomous Community of Aragon
                    are laid down in Annex B ',                                           which the Commission adopted on 29 January 1 992 ( 2 ).
             — Article 7 ( 7 ).                                                           Therefore to draw the automatic conclusion that it is
                    The provisions concerned are precisely those which, as                incompatible with the Treaty would entail an
                    explained above at point 5 , confine the current                      irreconcilable contradiction . On the contrary, the aid
                    applicability of Legislative Decree No 133/1992 to a                  should be considered to meet all the conditions in order
                    very small proportion of the existing plants .'
( 2 ) OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p. 23 .
                                                                                to be considered compatible, particularly since the
(-') OJ No L 291 , 24 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 .                                               provisions underlying it met the criteria which enabled it
                                                                                to be authorized subsequently as a general regional aid
                                                                                scheme .
                                                                                — Error in the assessment of facts : the contested decision
                                                                                relies on mere 'hypotheses ' extrapolated from
                                                                                information which not only is unrepresentative but also
                                                                                refers to years subsequent to those which were taken
                                                                                into account when granting the aid ( 1990 et seq., instead
Action brought on 1 June 1995 by Kingdom of Spain against                                 of 1988 and 1989 ), even though the Commission itself
            the Commission of the European Communities                                    pointed out the strong increase in demand within the
                                     ( Case C-169/95 )                                    Community in the sector concerned in the years which
                                       ( 95/C 208/ 15 )                                   were relevant to the granting of aid .
                                                                                — In the alternative, the Kingdom of Spain considers that
An action against the Commission of the European                                          there are exceptional circumstances which could justify
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                                the recipient undertaking's objection to repaying the aid .
European Communities on 1 June 1995 by the Kingdom of                                     The recipient undertaking acted on the basis that it
Spain, represented by Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez,                                      considered the aid to be compatible regional aid to be
Director General for Community Legal and Institutional                                    notified a posteriori to the Commission, in accordance


title: Case C-471/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Special scheme for taxing the profit margin — Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ — Sales of parts removed from end-of-life vehicles)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-471/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for taxing the profit margin - Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ - Sales of parts removed from end-of-life vehicles))
   (2017/C 070/09)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that used parts, from end-of-life motor vehicles purchased by a vehicle reuse undertaking from a private individual, intended to be sold as spare parts, constitute ‘second-hand goods’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that the supplies of such parts, effected by a taxable dealer, are subject to the application of the profit margin scheme.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case T-48/07: Action brought on 21 February 2007 — ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/50

         Action brought on 21 February 2007 — ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX)
   (Case T-48/07)
   (2007/C 82/105)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH (Ulm, Germany) (represented by S. Völker, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 December 2006 in Case R 1048/2004-4 concerning the application for Community trade mark No 002603124;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BioGeneriX ’for goods in Classes 1 and 5 (Application No 2 603 124).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of part of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the trade mark applied for has the requisite minimum level of distinctiveness and there is no need to preserve its availability.

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


title: Case F-24/12: Action brought on 27 February 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/36

         Action brought on 27 February 2012 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-24/12)
   2012/C 138/83
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision adopted by the President of the European Parliament reassigning the applicant within the same Directorate-General of the Parliament from the post of Head of Unit to a post of Advisor to the Director of a Directorate and the claim for compensation for psychological harassment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 16 January 2012 which terminated, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2012, the applicant’s duties as Head of Unit for Equality and Diversity in DG Personnel and which transferred him, from that date, to Directorate D of that DG as Advisor, and at the same time withdrew the benefit of the allowance for Heads of Unit;

               —

               Grant the applicant damages in compensation for harm suffered for an amount assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 50 000;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-9/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2014  — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D. G. Kieback

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2014 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D. G. Kieback
   (Case C-9/14)
   2014/C 102/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: D. G. Kieback

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 39 EC be interpreted as meaning that the Member State where a taxable person engages in paid employment is, when charging income tax, to take the personal and family circumstances of the interested party into account in circumstances where (i) that taxable person only worked for a part of the tax year in that Member State while living in another Member State, (ii) he received all, or almost all, of his income for that period in that State of employment, (iii) he has left, in the course of the relevant year, to live and work in another State, and (iv) when the tax year is considered as a whole, he did not receive all, or almost all, of his income in the first-mentioned State of employment?

               2.

               Does it make a difference to the answer to the first question whether the State where the worker has gone to live and work during the course of the tax year is not a Member State of the European Union?


21.4.2001              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-367/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-463/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/40)                                                      (2001/C 118/43)
By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of           By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-367/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-463/99: Commission of the
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: Hugo BOSS            European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
AG v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-467/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-246/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/44)
                        (2001/C 118/41)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-467/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-246/97: Portuguese Republic v             European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-47/00 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case    C-330/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/45)
                        (2001/C 118/42)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-47/00: (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-330/97: Portuguese Republic v             ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Hasan Gevin v Bundesan-
Commission of the European Communities.                               stalt für Arbeit — Kindergeldkasse.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Joined Cases T-236/04 and T-241/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  28 November 2005  — European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Stichting Natuur en Milieu v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Decisions 2004/247/EC and 2004/248/EC — Objection of inadmissibility — Standing to bring proceedings)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2005 — European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Stichting Natuur en Milieu v Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases T-236/04 and T-241/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Decisions 2004/247/EC and 2004/248/EC - Objection of inadmissibility - Standing to bring proceedings)
   (2006/C 48/64)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) and Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht, Netherlands), represented by: P. van den Biesen and B. Arentz, lawyers.

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities, represented by: B. Doherty.

      Intervener in support of the applicants: French Republic, represented by J.-L. Florent and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents.

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Syngenta Crop Protection AG, established in Basle, Switzerland, represented by D. Abrahams, Barrister, and C. Simpson, Solicitor.
   Application for:
   In Case T-236/04, for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2004/248/EC of 10 March 2004 concerning the non-inclusion of atrazine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2004 L 78, p. 53) and, in Case T-241/04, for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2004/247/EC of 10 March 2004 concerning the non-inclusion of simazine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2004 L 78, p. 50).
   Operative part of the Order:

               1)

               Cases T 236/04 and T 241/04 are joined;

               2)

               The actions in Cases T 236/04 and T 241/04 are dismissed as inadmissible;

               3)

               The applicants shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those of the Commission in Cases T-236/04 and T-241/04;

               4)

               The interveners shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.07.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-525/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — National rules ceasing to have any legal effect before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion — Inadmissibility of the action)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-525/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - National rules ceasing to have any legal effect before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion - Inadmissibility of the action)
   (2005/C 330/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-525/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis, C. Loggi and K. Wiedner) v Italian Republic (Agent: I. M. Braguglia and G. Fiengo, lawyer) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 16 December 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004


title: Case C-64/11: Action brought on 11 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/8

         Action brought on 11 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-64/11)
   2011/C 113/17
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by adopting Article 17(1) of Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March approving the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with 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;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The provision at issue introduces special treatment for unrealised capital gains on assets of companies that transfer their residence to another Member State of the European Union, cease their activity in Spain in order to continue it in another Member State or transfer their activities to another Member State. In those cases, Spain taxes the unrealised capital gains at the time of exit, so that the affected companies must settle a tax debt in respect of unrealised and hypothetical revenues which may never be realised. That regime amounts to an exception to the normal rule according to which tax is levied on revenue actually obtained by the taxable person during the taxable period.
   The Commission submits that that aspect of the Spanish legislation is incompatible with the TFEU and with the EEA Agreement, since it is a discriminatory measure, and in any event a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of establishment. The Spanish rule could discourage movements of companies or assets which would result in a better distribution of economic resources.
   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 onerous procedures. According to the Commission, there is no justification for the immediate charging of taxes on unrealised capital gains when a Spanish company is transferred to another Member State or when a permanent establishment ceases activity in Spain or transfers its assets from Spain to another Member State, if that kind of taxation is not found in comparable national situations.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 November 1996 in Case T-272/94: Claude Brulant v. European Parliament (Officials - Promotion - Abuse of process)

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-158/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF — Negligence of the Member State in the recovery of sums wrongly paid — Liability of the Member State for the financial consequences of failure to recover)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-158/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF - Negligence of the Member State in the recovery of sums wrongly paid - Liability of the Member State for the financial consequences of failure to recover)
   2012/C 366/55
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, S. Papaïoannou and V. Karra, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and E. Tserepa-Lacombe, agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment or variation of Commission Decision C(2009) 810 final of 13 February 2009 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), ‘Guarantee’ Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as that decision excludes from Community funding, and imposes on the Hellenic Republic liability for, a sum of EUR 13 348 979,02

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 810 final of 13 February 2009 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) ‘Guarantee’ Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as it closes the files EL/1993/01 and EL/1994/031 and in that regard imposes on the Hellenic Republic liability for the sums of EUR 519 907 and EUR 300 914,99;

               2.

               Dismisses the action for the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the European Commission.

               4.

               orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its costs and one fifth of the costs of the Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Köln by order of that court of 6 May 1997 in the case of Haydar Akman against the Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises, Joined party: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Case C-210/97)

text:
No C 228/8              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 7 . 97
        establishment of the CIS, to rely on Article 235              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial
         (quod non), nevertheless, the legal basis of the             gericht Niedersachsen by order of that court of 22 May
        provisions relating to mutual assistance on request           1997 in the case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt
         and spontaneous assistance should have been                       fur Arbeit, joined party: Federal Republic of Germany
        Article 100a . In Case C-300/89, the Court of                                           ( Case C-211/97)
        Justice held that an act may not have a dual legal
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/ 16 )
         basis where one of those bases corresponds to the
        cooperation procedure ( Article 189b of the EC
        Treaty) and the other requires unanimity, inasmuch            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         as that would undermine the very purpose of the              European Communities by an order of the Landessozial
        cooperation procedure, thereby divesting it of its            gericht Niedersachsen (Higher Labour Court, Lower
         substance,                                                   Saxony ) of 22 May 1997, which was received at the Court
                                                                      Registry on 4 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
     — the Regulation lays down the organizational
                                                                      case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit,
        measures needed for the requisite cooperation
         between them and the Commission, with a view to
                                                                      joined party: Federal Republic of Germany, on the
                                                                      following questions:
         ensuring the functioning of the internal market,
     — no other specific legal basis exists in the Treaty;            ( a ) Does the option by a person employed by a consular
        this would appear to be confirmed by the fact that                   post under the first sentence of Article 16 ( 2 ) of
         the Council has had recourse to Article 235                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 H to be subject to the
         thereof.                                                            legislation of the sending Member State of which he is
                                                                             a national also have effect for his spouse, not
(') OJ No L 82, 22 . 3 . 1997, p . 1 .                                       employed by the consular service, who is also a
                                                                             national of the sending Member State,
                                                                             or
                                                                             is the legislation of the sending Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge
richt Köln by order of that court of 6 May 1997 in the                       applicable to the spouse only if she herself also opts to
                                                                             be subject to it ?
case of Haydar Akman against the Oberkreisdirektor des
Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises, Joined party: Vertreter des
    öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln              ( b ) If the option by the national who is in the consular
                                                                             service also has effect for his spouse, does the
                         ( Case C-210/97 )
                                                                             effectiveness of the option to be subject to the
                           ( 97/C 228/15 )                                   legislation of the sending Member State presuppose
                                                                             the consent or other cooperation of the spouse who is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       also affected thereby ?
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge
richt Koln (Administrative Court, Cologne ) of 6 May                  (') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
1997, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Haydar Akman against
the Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises
( Chief Administrative Officer of the administrative district
Rheinisch-Bergischer-Kreis ), Joined party: Vertreter des             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hojesteret by
offentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Koln                  order of 3 June 1997 in the case of Centros Limited v.
( Representative of the Public Interest before the                                       Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen
Administrative Court, Cologne ), on the following
question:                                                                                ( Case C-212/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/ 17 )
For a child of a Turkish worker to have the right to
extension of his residence permit, which, according to the
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-355/93 Eroglu
                                                                      European Communities by order of 3 June 1997 from the
v. Land Baden-Wiirttemberg ('), arises from the second
                                                                      Hojesteret ( Danish Supreme Court), which was received at
paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
                                                                      the Court Registry on 5 June 1997, for a preliminary
EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
the Association, must the employed parent still be resident           ruling in the case of Centros Limited v. Erhvervs- og
                                                                      Selskabsstyrelsen ( Trade and Companies Board) on the
in Germany, or even still be in an employment
                                                                      following question:
relationship, at the time when the child has completed his
course of vocational training, or is that provision
sufficiently complied with if the Turkish parent was legally          Is it compatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty, in
employed at an earlier time for at least three years ?                conjunction with Articles 58 and 56 thereof, to refuse
                                                                      registration of a subsidiary of a company which has its
O [ 1994] ECR 1-5113 .                                                registered office in another Member State and has been
                                                                      lawfully founded with company capital of £ 100
                                                                       ( approximately Dkr 1 000 ) and established under the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 13 December 1995 in Joined Cases T-481/93 and T-484/93 Vereniging van Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Nederlandse Bond van Waaghouders van Levend Vee v. Commission of the European Communities (Live pigs - Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and 93/177/EEC concerning certain protection measures, with regard to swine vesicular disease, in the Netherlands and Italy - Actions for annulment - Actions for compensation)

text:
3 . 2 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 31 / 17
        Removal from the register of Case C-82/94 ( )                 from the register of Case C-56/95 : Briihler Kreditbank eG v.
                                                                      Finanzamt Briihl .
                           ( 96/C 31 /35 )
By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-82/94 : Andreas Mohringer v.
Zentrale zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
( ) OJ No C 120 , 30. 4 . 1994 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-86/95 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 /38 )
                                                                      By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-108/94 ( )                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-86/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 31 /36 )                            European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 27 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/94 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-101/95 ( )
                                                                                96 /C 3 1 /3 9
                                                                      By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-56/95 ( )                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 96/C 31 /37 )                            from the register of Case C-101 /95 : Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               (•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               legal persons who are members of that association and
                                                                      whose names are included on the list annexed to the
                       ( Third Chamber)
                                                                      judgment, and Nederlandse Bond van Waaghouders van
                   of 13 December 1995                                Levend Vee, along with the natural and legal persons who
in Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 Vereniging van                 are members of that association and whose names are
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Nederlandse Bond van                included on the list annexed to the judgment, having their
Waaghouders van Levend Vee v. Commission of the                       registered offices in Roosendaal (Netherlands ), represented
                 European Communities ( ] )                           by Inne Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service
(Live pigs — Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and                      in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert Dupong,
93/1 77/EEC concerning certain protection measures, with              14 Rue des Bains, against Commission of the European
regard to swine vesicular disease, in the Netherlands and             Communities ( Agents : Thomas van Rijn, Tom Ottervanger
Italy — Actions for annulment — Actions for                           and Harold Nyssens ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                      Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and 93/1 77/EEC, of
                          compensation)
                                                                      26 February 1993 and 26 March 1993 respectively,
                           ( 96/C 31 /40 )                            concerning certain protection measures with regard to
                                                                      swine vesicular disease in the Netherlands and Italy ( OJ
                                                                      1993 No L 50 , p. 29 , and OJ 1993 No L 74, p. 88 ), and for
                                                                      the award of damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third
               (Language of the cases: Dutch)                         Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, acting as President,
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       13 December 1995 , in which it :
In Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 : Vereniging van
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens, along with the natural and              1 . dismisses the applications;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 / 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs.                              Commission's decision of 13 January 1994 refusing the
                                                                         applicant financial support under the 1993 Thermie
t 1 ) OJ No C 172 , 23 . 6 . 1993 and OJ No C 209 , 3 . 8 . 1993 .       programme and for a direction to the Council to take a new
                                                                         decision — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
                                                                         composed of H. Kirschner, acting as President,
                                                                         A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 13 December 1995 , in which it :
                         ( Third Chamber)                                1 . dismisses the action ;
                     of 13 December 1995
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
in Case T-85/94 ( 122 ): Commission of the European
           Communities v. Eugénio Branco Lda ( 1 )                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
(European Social Fund — Reduction in financial assistance
initially granted — Statement of reasons — Proceedings
         seeking to have a default judgment set aside)
                             ( 96/C 31 /41
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                 of 14 December 1995
                                                                         in Case T-72/94 : Komninos Diamantaras v. Commission of
In Case T-85/94 ( 122 ): Commission of the European                                         the European Communities ( 1 )
Communities ( Agents : Francisco de Sousa Fialho and
Horstpeter Kreppel ) v. Eugenio Branco Lda , having its                  (Officials — Expatriation allowance — No habitual
registered office in Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior,             residence in the State in which the official is employed —
of the Bar of Vila Nova de Gaia , with an address for service            Article 4 (1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder,                                                      officials)
6 Rue Heine — application for the setting aside of the                                                ( 96/C 31 /43 )
judgment given by default by the Court of First Instance on
12 January 1995 in Case T-85/94 Branco v. Commission                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
[ 1995 ] ECR 11-45 — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as President,                 In Case T-72/94 : Komninos Diamantaras, an official of the
C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has              Commission of the European Communities, residing in
given a judgment on 13 December 1995 , in which it:                      Brussels, represented by Athanassios D. Damis and Nikos
                                                                         E. Stavropoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
 1 . dismisses the Commission 's application to have the                 service in Luxembourg, care of Emmanuel Kaïlis, 14 Rue
      judgment of 12 January 1995 set aside;                             Julien Vasque, Gasperich, v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) — application,
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              first, for the annulment of the decision of the Commission,
                                                                         communicated to the applicant by administrative note dated
f 1 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                       22 February 1993 , refusing him the expatriation allowance,
                                                                         and, second, for an order requiring the Commission to pay
                                                                         the said allowance from the date of the applicant's entry into
                                                                         the service of the Commission — the Court of First Instance
                                                                         ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 R. Schintgen and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                     of 13 December 1995                                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in
                                                                         which it :
in Case T-109/94: Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co.
Betriebs KG v. Commission of the European                                 1 . annuls the decision of the Commission, communicated
                           Communities C )                                      by note of 22 February 1 993 , refusing the applicant the
 (Financial support in the energy sector — Thermie                              expatriation allowance;
programme — Obligation to state reasons — Opinion ofthe
        committee — Right to a hearing — Discretion)                     2 . orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sums
                                                                                corresponding to that allowance from 1 November
                              { 96/C 31 /42 )
                                                                                1 992 , less the payments already made to him by way of
                                                                                expatriation allowance, together with default interest at
                (Language of the case: German)                                  the annual rate of 8% from the dates when those sums
                                                                                respectively fell due until actual payment thereof;
 In Case T-109/94 : Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co .
 Betriebs KG, established at Groothusen-Krummhörn                         3 . orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
 ( Germany ), represented by Professor Detlef Schumacher,
 Bremen, and Benno Grunewald, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen v.                     f 1 ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Jürgen
 Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the


title: Case C-272/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/83/EC — Right of asylum — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-272/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Right of asylum - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 205/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. Adsera Ribera, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the presribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.


               15.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 76/13

         Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-1/12)
   2012/C 76/10
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening, represented by Jan Magne Juuhl-Langseth, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Munkedamsveien 45, N-0201 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority void; and

               2.

               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant is the Norwegian Publishers Association. Its members are publishing houses in Norway.

               —

               The Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, adopted on 12 October 2011.

               —

               The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure, according to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA); and

                           —

                           has not provided sufficient reasoning for its Decision, as stated in Article 16 SCA.


               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/14

         Election of a President of a Chamber of three Judges
   (2006/C 190/23)
   On 5 July 2006, the Court of First Instance elected, in accordance with Article 15(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Judge Cooke as President of a Chamber of three Judges for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2007.


title: Case T-431/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 19 October 2010 — Nencini v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery of allowances paid in reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses and of travel costs — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/30

         Order of the President of the General Court of 19 October 2010 — Nencini v Parliament
   (Case T-431/10 R)
   (Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery of allowances paid in reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses and of travel costs - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   2010/C 328/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Riccardo Nencini (Barberino di Mugello, Italy) (represented by: F. Bertini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorens, A. Caiola and D. Moore, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for stay of execution of a number of acts of the Parliament relating to the recovery of parliamentary allowances wrongly received

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of 29 August 2014 in Case E-24/13 — Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Obligation of transparency — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               19.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/32

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 29 August 2014
   in Case E-24/13
   Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger
   (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Obligation of transparency — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   (2015/C 92/06)
   In Case E-24/13, Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement and the obligation of transparency derived therefrom in the context of a procedure for awarding a casino concession, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 29 August 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               In the absence of specific provisions, national authorities remain bound by fundamental rules of EEA law when awarding service concessions. This does not preclude the national authority from attaching relative weighting to the award criteria but there remains a duty to comply with the obligation of transparency. This obligation entails that the relative weighting cannot alter the original award criteria, be of a nature that could have significantly affected the preparation of tenders or be likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers.

               2.

               The obligation of transparency does not necessarily require the national authorities to terminate a contract or the national courts to set aside an award decision in every case of breach of that obligation in connection with the award of a service concession. However, the national court must consider, when assessing in the circumstances of the case at hand the available remedies to ensure that the effects contrary to Articles 31 and 36 EEA do not subsist, that the public interest objective of good administration is adequately reflected in the award of concessions, so that awards can be made in a way that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. In the absence of EEA rules on remedies it is for the domestic legal system to regulate the legal procedures for safeguarding the rights which individuals derive from that obligation in such a way that those procedures are no less favourable than similar domestic procedures and do not make the exercise of those rights practically impossible or excessively difficult.


title: Case C-415/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg (Germany), lodged on 13 September 2012 — Bianca Brandes v Land Niedersachsen

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg (Germany), lodged on 13 September 2012 — Bianca Brandes v Land Niedersachsen
   (Case C-415/12)
   2012/C 366/44
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Nienburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bianca Brandes

      Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

      Question referred

   Is the relevant European Union law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work contained in the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, (1) as amended by Directive 98/23, (2) to be interpreted as precluding national statutory or collective provisions or practices under which, in the event of a change in the scale of a worker’s employment associated with a change in the number of days worked per week, the scale of the entitlement to leave which the worker was unable to exercise during the reference period is adjusted in such a way that, although the amount of leave entitlement, expressed in weeks, remains the same, the leave entitlement, expressed in days, is converted to the new scale of employment?

      (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 on the extension of Directive 97/81/EC on the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 10).


title: Case C-193/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/15

         Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-193/11)
   2011/C 204/28
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by applying the special VAT scheme for travel agents in cases involving the sale of travel services to persons who are not travellers, as provided for in Article 119(3) of the Law of 11 March 2004 on the taxation of goods and services (the Polish Law on VAT), the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the Commission’s view, the application by the Republic of Poland, on the basis of Article 119 of the Polish Law on VAT, of the special VAT scheme for travel agents also to cases in which the recipient of travel services is not a traveller is incompatible with Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC as currently in force.
   In support of its contention, the Commission submits that Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC correspond to the wording previously set out in Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive. Five out of the six official language versions at that time (that is to say, all of the language versions except for the English) were entirely consistent and consistently used the term ‘traveller’ throughout the text of Article 26. The use of the term ‘customer’ [‘nabywca’] is found solely in a number of language versions of Article 306 of Directive 2006/112/EC which are based on the English-language version. In those cases, however, the further provisions relating to the special scheme (Articles 307 to 310) use the notion of ‘traveller’, which indicates that the notion of ‘customer’ was wrongly used in Article 306.
   Furthermore, even if it were to be agreed that the purpose of the special VAT scheme for travel agents, that is to say, the simplification of account settling, would be more effectively achieved by an interpretation which took account of customers, it appears from the Court’s case-law that application of that scheme based exclusively on a purposive construction, contrary to the unequivocal decision of the European Union legislature which follows from the content of the provisions currently in force, cannot be supported.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case F-87/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 June 2016 — Matzke v Commission

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 June 2016 — Matzke v Commission
   (Case F-87/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/72)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10/8/2015, p. 43.


title: Case T-313/06: Action brought on 18 November 2006 — Otsuka Chemical v EFSA

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/67

         Action brought on 18 November 2006— Otsuka Chemical v EFSA
   (Case T-313/06)
   (2006/C 326/140)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Otsuka Chemical Co, Ltd (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the EFSA's Conclusion Report, titled ‘Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Benfuracarb’;

               —

               order the EFSA and/or the European Commission by way of incidental request in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, to produce the proposal regarding the (non) inclusion of Benfuracarb in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC it intends to present to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health for a vote at its 22/24 November 2006 meeting, or any other meeting;

               —

               declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicants and the review of their Benfuracarb dossiers of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicants for the damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and to hold at this stage by interlocutory statement that the defendant is obliged to compensate the applicants for the damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing of the amount of compensation either by agreement between the parties or by the Court in the absence of such agreement;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-311/06, FMC Chemical et Arysta Lifesciences v European Food Safety Authority.


title: Case C-522/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/17

         Action brought on 23 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-522/04)
   (2005/C 57/33)
   Language of the case: English
   An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 against the Kingdom of Belgium by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Richard Lyal and Dimitris Triantafyllou, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court of Justice should declare that:

               —

               by making the deductibility of employers' contributions for supplementary old age and premature death insurance subject to the condition, laid down in Article 59 of the CIR'92 (Income Tax Code), that the contributions must be paid to an insurance undertaking or welfare fund established in Belgium;

               —

               by making the reduction of tax for long-term savings, granted by virtue of Articles 145/1 and 145/3 of the CIR'92 for personal contributions for supplementary old age and premature death insurance in the form of deductions made by the employer from the employee's remuneration, subject to the condition that the contributions must be paid to an insurance undertaking or welfare fund established in Belgium;

               —

               by providing in Article 364 bis of the CIR'92 that, where capital, surrender values and savings referred to in Article 34 if the CIR'92 are paid or allocated to a taxpayer who has previously transferred his residence or the primary location of his assets abroad, the payment or allocation is deemed to have taken place on the day preceding that transfer, and by, under paragraph 2 of the same article, assimilating to an allocation all transfers referred to in Article 34(2)(3), so that every insurer is under an obligation to withhold amounts in respect of income tax, in accordance with Article 270 of the CIR'92, from capital and redemption values paid to a non-resident who has been, at one time or another, a resident for tax purposes in Belgium, provided that those sums have, totally or partially, been constituted during the period in which the person concerned was a Belgian resident for tax purposes, even though bilateral tax agreements concluded by Belgium grant the right to tax such income to another Contracting State;

               —

               by levying tax, under Article 364 ter of the CIR'92, on transfers of capital or redemption values constituted by means of employers' contributions or personal contributions for supplementary retirement benefits, effected by the pension fund or insurance institution with which they have been established, for the benefit of the beneficiary or persons claiming through him, to another pension fund or insurance institution established outside Belgium, whereas such a transfer does not constitute a taxable transaction if the capital or redemption values are transferred to another pension fund or insurance institution established in Belgium; and

               —

               by, on the basis of Article 224/2 bis of the Règlement général sur les taxes assimilées au timbre (General Regulation on taxes assimilated to stamp duty), requiring foreign insurers who have no operational headquarters in Belgium to obtain approval, before providing their services in Belgium, of a representative residing in Belgium, who must personally assume, in writing, responsibility towards the State for paying the annual tax on insurance contracts, interest and fines which may be due in respect of contracts relating to risks situated in Belgium,

               —

               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 39, 43, 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEE Agreement, and Articles 4 and 11(2) of Directive 92/96/EEC of 10.11. 1992 (1) – following the recasting of Articles 5(1) and 53(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of 5. 11. 2002. (2)

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Belgian tax rules on occupational retirement schemes contain restrictions on the free movement of services, freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment, and free movement of capital.
   Freedom to provide services
   Tax provisions limiting the deductibility of employers' and personal contributions to occupational retirement schemes to contributions paid to institutions established in Belgium, thereby excluding contributions paid to institutions established outside Belgium, are contrary to the freedom to provide services.
   The provision which states that transfers of capital or surrender values created through employers' or personal contributions for supplementary retirement insurance are to be taxable where made to a pension fund or insurance undertaking established abroad likewise constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services for companies established in other Member States.
   Finally, the general and absolute obligation imposed on foreign insurance undertakings to appoint a representative residing in Belgium, who must give a personal undertaking to pay the annual tax on insurance contracts, is to be regarded as not being proportional and as undermining the freedom to provide services for companies established in other Member States. Its aim, which is to ensure payment of the tax, could be attained by less stringent means.
   The abovementioned national provisions are also contrary to Article 5 of Directive 2002/83/EC, which provides that authorisation obtained in a Member State is valid for the entire Community and enables the undertaking to carry on business there, either by virtue of being established there, or by virtue of the freedom to provide services, and to Article 53(2) of the same directive, which provides that each Member State must authorise insurance undertakings whose headquarters is established in its territory to transfer all or part of their portfolios to a transferee established in the Community.
   Freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment
   The provisions which disallow deduction of employers' contributions or a tax reduction for personal contributions paid to institutions established in other Member States are also contrary to the freedom of movement for employed and self-employed workers which is guaranteed by Articles 39 and 43 EC, in that workers who have engaged in an occupational activity in a Member State and joined an occupational retirement scheme in that State and then go to work in Belgium are unable to benefit from tax advantages for contributions paid in that other State. However, the income deriving from those schemes is taxable in Belgium if the persons concerned are Belgian residents when the income is received.
   The free movement of workers and freedom of establishment are also infringed by the provision under which the transfer of capital or surrender values created through employers' or personal contributions to supplementary retirement schemes is taxable when made to a pension fund or insurance institution established abroad. It places at a disadvantage employees and self-employed persons who wish to set up in another Member State and who, at that time, wish to transfer the said capital or surrender values.
   Free movement of capital
   Finally, the provisions in question also constitute obstacles to the free movement of capital, contrary to Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEE.
   Transfers under insurance contracts are to be regarded as capital movements and any limitation on the deductibility of employers' contributions and on tax abatements for personal contributions, whereby only contributions paid to institutions established in Belgium qualify, constitute discriminatory restrictions on the said free movement of capital.
   Similarly, the provision which states that the transfer of capital or surrender values created through employers' or personal contributions to supplementary retirement schemes is to be taxable when made to a pension fund or insurance institution established abroad, whereas that is not the case when the transfer is made to an undertaking established in Belgium, is likewise contrary to the free movement of capital.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance directive), OJ L 360 of 9. 12. 1992, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, OJ L 345 of 19. 12. 2002, p. 1.


title: Case T-485/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Bon Net v OHIM — Aldi (Bon Appétit!) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Bon Appétit! — Prior national figurative marks Бoн Апемú and Bon Apetí — No 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 98/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Bon Net v OHIM — Aldi (Bon Appétit!)
   (Case T-485/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Bon Appétit! - Prior national figurative marks Бoн Апемú and Bon Apetí - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 098/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bon Net OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: L, Kolks, C. Fürsen, N. Lützenrath and U. Rademacher, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2014 (Case R 1199/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Bon Net OOD and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bon Net OOD to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case T-511/11: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — France v Commission (State aid — Measures taken by Interbev — Financing by voluntary contributions made mandatory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/27

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — France v Commission
   (Case T-511/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures taken by Interbev - Financing by voluntary contributions made mandatory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 184/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Rossi and J. Gstalter, then E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and S. Thomas, then B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/131/EU of 13 July 2011 on levies for Interbev (OJ 2012 L 59, p. 14).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case C-151/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(c) — Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of navigation within European Union waters and to produce electricity on board a craft — Fuel used by a ship to sail from the place where it was built to the port of another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-151/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(c) - Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of navigation within European Union waters and to produce electricity on board a craft - Fuel used by a ship to sail from the place where it was built to the port of another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo))
   (2017/C 293/10)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ UAB

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down by that provision applies to fuel used to sail a ship, without cargo, from a port of a Member State, in the present case that where that ship was built, to a port of another Member State in order to take on cargo to be transported to a port of a third Member State.

               2.

               Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the application of the exemption laid down by that provision on the ground that the supply of energy products for a ship was carried out without complying with the formal requirements laid down by that legislation, even though that supply is in accordance with all the conditions for application laid down by that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case T-165/07: Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Red Bull v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (TORO)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/39

         Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Red Bull v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (TORO)
   (Case T-165/07)
   (2007/C 155/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: H. O'Neill, Solicitor, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Osborne SA (El Puerto de Santa Maria, 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 20 February 2007 in case No R 147/2005-4; and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Grupo Osborne SA

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘TORO’ for products and services in classes 32, 33 and 42 — application No 1 500 917

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national word marks ‘TORO ROSSO’ and ‘TORO ROJO’ for products in class 32 as well as national, international and Community word and figurative marks containing the word ‘BULL’ on its own or in combination with other words for goods and services in classes 32, 33 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods and services with the exception of ‘providing of temporary accommodation’

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision insofar as it upholds the opposition with regard to ‘beers’ (class 32), ‘alcoholic beverages, except wine and beer’ (class 33) and ‘providing of food and drink, including bars, snack-bars, restaurants, cafeterias, public houses, canteens and wine bars’ (class 42); the registration of the Community trade mark applied for can proceed for these products and services

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 73, second sentence, of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal did not set out clearly the basis of its decision in that it did not fully define the material submitted by the parties.
   Furthermore, a violation of Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation, as the Board of Appeal excluded the relevance of the reputation despite the conceptual identity of the conflicting marks and the reputation of the earlier marks.
   Finally, a violation of Article 8(5) of the regulation, as the Board of Appeal applied the assumption that the conflicting trade marks must be confusingly similar while it, according to the applicant, is sufficient that the consumer may ‘establish a link’ between the two marks.