title: Case C-108/03: Action brought on 7 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 112/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
Action brought on 7 March 2003 by the Commission of                     are liable to a maximum fine of PTE 50 000 whereas Spanish
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                   nationals who fail to apply in time for their identity documents
                                                                        are liable to a fine of PTE 50 for every month of delay. The
                                                                        Commission gives an outline of some of the complaints which
                         (Case C-108/03)                                gave rise to the reasoned opinion and to the present application
                                                                        which, in its view, clearly show the difference in the scale of
                                                                        fines and their disproportionate nature.
                         (2003/C 112/23)
                                                                        (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p 485.
                                                                        (2 ) OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Carmel O’Reilly, Legal Adviser, and Luis
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 10 March 2003 by the Kingdom
—     Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its        of Belgium against the Commission of the European
      obligations under Articles 39, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty                                     Communities
      and Article 4 of Council Directive 68/360/EEC ( 1) of
      15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on
      movement and residence within the Community for
      workers of Member States and their families and Article 4                                   (Case C-110/03)
      of Council Directive 73/148/EEC (2) of 21 May 1973 on
      the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
      within the Community for nationals of Member States                                         (2003/C 112/24)
      with regard to establishment and the provision of services
      inasmuch as non-Spanish Community nationals in the
      Kingdom of Spain are treated, as regards the degree of
      fault and scale of fines for infringement of provisions
      relating to residence permits, disproportionately differ-
      ently from Spanish nationals who commit the compar-               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      able infringement of the obligation to obtain or renew            ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      national identity documents;                                      Communities on 10 March 2003 by the Kingdom of Belgium,
                                                                        represented by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Wael-
                                                                        broeck and D. Brinckman, lawyers.
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     declare the application admissible and well founded;
Failure to fulfil requirements relating to residence permits —          —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of
failure to submit the requisite documents, failure to apply for               12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and
or renew permits — may be the subject of fines provided that                  88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (1);
the amount of the fine is not disproportionate to the degree of
seriousness of the infringement. The Commission acknowl-
edges that the situation of non-Spanish nationals, as regards           —     so far as necessary, by virtue of Article 241 of the EC
residence permits, and that of Spanish nationals, as regards                  Treaty, declare inapplicable Council Regulation (EC) No
identity documents, are not identical. However, that has not                  994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92
precluded, in the Commission’s view, the Court of Justice                     and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
considering those two situations in order to arrive at the                    munity to certain categories of horizontal State aid (2) as
concept of comparability of fines (see the judgment in Case                   the legal basis for the regulation at issue;
C-24/97 Commission v Germany [1998] ECR I-2133). The
Commission regrets that, for delaying up to three months
before applying for a residence permit, non-Spanish nationals           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Garage des Quatre Vallées and Joseph Tosi against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-189/96)

text:
22 . 2 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/25
Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Garage des                        Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Christophe
Quatre Vallees and Joseph Tosi against the Commission of                Palma, Gerard Palma and SA Palma against the
                   the European Communities                                      Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-l 89/96 )                                                      ( Case T-190/96 )
                             ( 97/C 54/40 )                                                          ( 97/C 54/41 )
                (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                        An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                     Instance of the European Communities on 26 November
1996 by Garage des Quatre Vallees, whose registered                     1996 by Christophe Palma , residing at Bedeau ( Algeria ),
office is at Albertville ( France ), and by Joseph Tosi ,               Gerard Palma , residing in Oran ( Algeria ), and SA Palma ,
residing at Albertville, represented by Remi Saint Pierre ,             whose registered office is at Salon de Provence ( France ),
judicial administrator appointed by judgment of                         represented by Dominique Rafoni , judicial administrator
5 November 1991 by the Tribunal de Grande Instance,                     appointed by judgment of 8 April 1994 by the Tribunal de
Albertville, and by Jean-Louis Portolano , of the Aix en                Commerce , Salon de Provence , and by Jean-Louis
Provence Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Portolano, of the Aix en Provence Bar, with an address for
at the Chambers of Roy Nathan , 18 rue des Glacis .                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Roy Nathan ,
                                                                        1 8 rue des Glacis .
The applicants claim that the Court should :
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission notified to
     Garage des Quatre Vallees ( GQV) on 23 September                   — annul the decision of the Commission notified to SA
     1996 inasmuch as it is manifestly wrong in law and                      Palma on 23 September 1996 inasmuch as it is
     fact,                                                                   manifestly wrong in law and fact,
— dispose of GQV's case and complaint, ruling that the                  — dispose of Palma 's case and complaint, ruling that the
     V.A.G. framework contract, as referred to in the                        V.A.G. framework contract, as referred to in the
     complaint, falls within the scope of Article 85 ( 1 ) and               complaint, falls within the scope of Article 85 ( 1 ) and
     that it fulfils neither the conditions required in order                that it fulfils neither the conditions required in order
     to be entitled to the categorical exemption under                       to be entitled to the categorial exemption under
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 authorizing certain                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 authorizing certain
     categories of agreements in the motor vehicle sector,                   categories of agreements in the motor vehicle sector,
     nor the conditions for an individual exemption under                    nor the conditions for an individual exemption under
     Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty — in view, in particular, of             Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty — in view, in particular, of
     the situation of the sector in question in the                          the situation of the sector in question in the
     Community, which is characterized by a bundle of                        Community, which is characterized by a bundle of
     similar agreements among all manufacturers,                             similar agreements among all manufacturers,
— find the Commission non-contractually liable and rule                 — find the Commission non-contractually liable and rule
     that it must make good the damage in the amount of                      that it must make good the damage in the amount of
     ECU 540 000, corresponding to 10% of the estimated                      ECU 540 000 , corresponding to 10% of the estimated
     losses to which the Commission 's inaction gave rise,                   losses to which the Commission's inaction gave rise,
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the                 — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the
     sum of FF 100 000 .                                                     sum of FF 100 000 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
those relied upon in Case T-l 85/96 .                                   those relied upon in Case T-l 89/96 .


title: Action brought on 23 March 1995 by Blue Circle Industries plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-88/95)

text:
No C 137/34           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
      determine, or state reasons for, the total amount of the        Action brought on 27 March 1995 by Expeditie- en
      fines imposed, and, in particular, the amount of the fine       Controlebedrijf Codirex BV against the Commission of the
      imposed on the applicant.                                                           European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-89/95 )
(') OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .                                                       ( 95/C 137/75 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 23 March 1995 by Blue Circle Industries             Communities was brought before the Court of First
pic against the Commission of the European                            Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1995
                           Communities                                by Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf Codirex BV, Rotterdam,
                                                                      represented by P. V. F. Bos and N. J. Helder, of the
                        ( Case T-88/95 )
                                                                      Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                          ( 95/C 137/74 )                             at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe .
               (Language of the case: English)                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Commission of the European                      ( a ) declare the action admissible;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 March 1995                 ( b ) annul the decision or measure adopted by the
by Blue Circle Industries pic , represented by Mr Jeremy                    Commission on 14 November 1994 in relation to the
Lever QC ., Mr Nicholas Green, Ms Jessica Simor, Ms Laura                   Netherlands ( reference No REM : 15/94 );
Mc Roberts, Ms Sara Vaughan with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the chambers of Elvinger & Hoss , 15 , Cote             (c ) order the Commission to pay the costs .
d'Eich, L-1450 Luxembourg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare the Commission's Decision 94/815/EC (cases
                                                                      Between 19 February 1981 and 23 June 1983 the applicant,
    IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement ) void and annul it in              as a customs forwarding agent, prepared declarations
    its entirety,
                                                                      relating to the import of poultry sections . By reason of
                                                                      subsequently discovered fraud on the part of the importer,
                                                                      the Netherlands customs authorities demanded from the
— in the alternative annul those parts of the Decision that
    the Court considers erroneous or unsafe and reduce the
                                                                      applicant payment of the outstanding additional
                                                                      agricultural levies . The applicant thereupon lodged an
    fine imposed on Blue Circle accordingly, and
                                                                      application for reimbursement pursuant to Article 13 of
                                                                      Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 of 2 June 1979 ( 1 ).
— order the Commission to pay Blue Circle's costs .                   The Netherlands submitted that application to the
                                                                      Commission, which held, in its contested decision, that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   remission of the import duties was not justified .
The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to               The action, which has been brought under Article 173 of the
establish to the requisite legal standard , that is to a degree of    EC Treaty, is based inter alia on the following grounds:
certainty that goes beyond any reasonable doubt, that the
allegations made against it are well founded .                       — infringement of the Commission's procedural rules, in
                                                                           that the decision was not signed by the Commissioner
Secondly, the applicant maintains that the Decision was                    responsible for customs matters,
adopted on the basis of an incorrect procedure and an
incorrect approach to the evidence. In its submission, the           — infringement of the right to a fair hearing . As the party
Decision should be annulled , because the errors of                        directly entitled to the benefit of remission of
procedure — by their very nature — throw serious doubt on                  agricultural levies, the applicant should have been heard
the validity of the Decision and cannot be rectified at this               in the proceedings,
stage .
                                                                     — infringement of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC )
Subsidiarily, the applicant contests the level of the fine; it             No 1430/79 . The Commission wrongly concluded that
contends on that score that the Commission has erred in its
                                                                           no special situation had arisen within the meaning of
determination of the duration and gravity of the                           that provision. The applicant refers in that regard to the
infringements and in its finding that all of the infringements             following circumstances : discrepancy between the
were intentional and serious .
                                                                           principles underlying the applicable Netherlands rules
                                                                           and the Community rules in the matter, the acceptable
                                                                           nature of the invoice values in relation to the market


title: Case C-540/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 21 December 2009 — Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp v Skatteverket

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 21 December 2009 — Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp v Skatteverket
   (Case C-540/09)
   2010/C 51/40
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Regeringsrätten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Question referred

   Is Article 13B of the Sixth VAT Directive (Article 135(1) of the Council Directive on a common system of value added tax (1)) to be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemptions provided for therein also include services (underwriting) which involve a credit institution providing, for consideration, a guarantee to a company which is about to issue shares, where under that guarantee the credit institution undertakes to acquire any shares which are not subscribed within the period for share subscription?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/388/EEC (OJ L 145, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 December 1997 in Case T-142/95: Jean-Louis Delvaux v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Promotion - Comparative examination of the merits - Staff report - Statement of reasons - Identical career conditions - Discrimination on grounds of nationality)

text:
C 41/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.2.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Luxembourg care of Jean-Pascal Lange, 40 Rue de la Syre,
                        (First Chamber)                              Uebersyren, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Julian Currall and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð
                    of 18 December 1997                              application, first, for annulment of the two decisions of
                                                                     the Commission published in Administrative Notices
in Case T-90/95: Walter Gill v. Commission of the
                                                                     Nos 852 of 2 September 1994 and 859 of 8 September
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                     1994, on the ground that the applicant's name was not
(Officials Ð Medical examinations Ð Failure to                       included in those notices on the list of officials considered
communicate information on state of health Ð Right to                the most deserving of promotion to Grade LA 4 in 1994
                keep his state of health secret)                     or on the list of officials actually promoted to grade LA 4
                                                                     in 1994, second, for annulment of the decision of the
                          (98/C 41/41)                               Commission of 3 April 1995 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                     complaint and, third, for an order requiring the defendant
               (Language of the case: French)                        to pay the sum of Bfrs 100 000 by way of compensation
                                                                     for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the
                                                                     irregularity of the promotion procedure Ð the Court of
In Case T-90/95: Walter Gill, former official of the                 First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-
Commission of the European Communities, represented                  Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                    J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          given a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Julian Curall and Jean-Luc Fagnart)             1. dismisses the action;
Ð application for reparation for the harm suffered by the
applicant as a result of the service-related fault allegedly
committed by the defendant's administration Ð the Court              2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 December 1997,                (1) OJ C 248, 23.9.1995.
the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3. The applicant shall bear the costs of the expert.                                        (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 December 1997
(1) OJ C 137, 3.6.1995.
                                                                     in Case T-222/95: Antonio Angelini v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Change of place of employment Ð Return to
                                                                     the place of original employment Ð Installation
                                                                                allowance)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                     (98/C 41/43)
                    of 18 December 1997
in Case T-142/95: Jean-Louis Delvaux v. Commission of                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Promotion Ð Comparative examination of
the merits Ð Staff report Ð Statement of reasons Ð                   In Case T-222/95: Antonio Angelini, an official of the
Identical career conditions Ð Discrimination on grounds              Commission of the European Communities, posted to the
                         of nationality)                             Ispra establishment of the Joint Research Centre,
                                                                     represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, Avvocato with the
                          (98/C 41/42)                               right of audience before the Court of Cassation of the
                                                                     Italian Republic, with an address for service in
               (Language of the case: French)                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10
                                                                     Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
In Case T-142/95: Jean-Louis Delvaux, an official of the             for annulment of the decision of the Commission to refuse
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  to pay to the applicant an installation allowance upon the
Rhode-Saint-GeneÁse (Belgium), represented by Nicolas                latter's return to his original place of employment, after a
LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         period of employment outwith his institution Ð the Court


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH (Poultrymeat — Marketing standards — Prohibition on including certain indications concerning the type of farming on labelling — Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH (1)

   (Poultrymeat - Marketing standards - Prohibition on including certain indications concerning the type of farming on labelling - Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91)
   (2005/C 217/38)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-203/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany), made by decision of 28 April 2004, received at the Court on 7 May 2004, in the proceedings between Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG and Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultrymeat, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1321/2002 of 22 July 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that the wording ‘reared under controlled conditions’ (‘kontrollierte Aufzucht’) constitutes an indication of the type of farming and for that reason that article does not allow an undertaking to include that wording on the labelling of a product falling within the scope of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.


title: Case C-87/02: Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
4.5.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/37
Action brought on 5 March 2002 by the Commission                       Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                             Austria
                         (Case C-76/02)                                                          (Case C-87/02)
                        (2002/C 109/62)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/63)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
Guerrero, of the Commission’s legal Service, Wagner Centre             2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      represented by Michel Van Beek and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                       as Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
      with Commission Directive 2000/71/EC of 7 November               —     Declare that, by the failure of the Abruzzo regional
      2000 to adapt the measuring methods as laid down in                    authority to check whether the plans for the construction
      Annexes I, II, III and IV to Directive 98/70/EC of the                 of a road to by-pass the city of Teramo (the ‘Lotto Zero’
      European Parliament and of the Council to technical                    project — an alternative to the SS 80 trunk road between
      progress as foreseen in Article 10 of that Directive (1), or           Termano and Giulianova), which fell within the scope of
      at any rate to communicate the same to the Commission,                 Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (1), required to be
      the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations           assessed for its effects on the environment, in accordance
      under Article 2(1) of that directive;                                  with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, the Italian Republic
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of
                                                                             Directive 85/337/EEC;
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                       —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC            Pleas in law and main arguments
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is such as to require
Member States to whom directives are addressed to transpose
such directives into national law so as to give full effect to
them before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition. The
time-limit prescribed in Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/71             Article 4(1) of the directive provides that projects of the classes
expired on 1 January 2000 but the Republic of Austria has not          listed in Annex I are to be made subject to an assessment in
adopted the requisite provisions.                                      accordance with Articles 5 to 10. According to Article 4(2),
                                                                       projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be made subject
                                                                       to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where
                                                                       Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
(1) OJ 2000 L 287, p. 46.                                              To that end, the Member States may inter alia specify certain
                                                                       types of projects as being subject to an assessment or may
                                                                       establish the criteria and/or thresholds necessary to determine
                                                                       which of the projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be
                                                                       subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/38               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
The ‘Lotto Zero’ project is a project covered by Annex II to the         —     Infringement of Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure of
directive. The Commission takes the view that, by failing to                   the Court of First Instance: it is hardly possible to claim
ascertain whether that project required to be assessed for its                 that the matter of direct liability of the Community was
environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of                   totally absent from the application initiating proceedings
the directive, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under                and that it only appeared as a new plea in law in the
Article 4(2).                                                                  reply.
(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements
Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Biret International                   Biret et Cie SA against the judgment delivered on 11 Janu-
SA against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002 by                  ary 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  Instance of the European Communities in Case T-210/00
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret                      between Etablissements Biret et Cie SA and Council of
International SA and Council of the European Union,                      the European Union, supported by the Commission of
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                                        the European Communities
                                ties
                                                                                (Case C-94/02 P)
                         (Case C-93/02 P)
                         (2002/C 109/64)                                                            (2002/C 109/65)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret                      European Communities in Case T-210/00 between Etablisse-
International and Council of the European Union, supported               ments Biret et Cie SA and Council of the European Union,
by Commission of the European Communities, was brought                   supported by Commission of the European Communities,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
16 March 2002 by Biret International SA, represented by M. de            Communities on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements Biret et
Thoré and S. Rodrigues, with an address for service in                   Cie SA, represented by S. Rodrigues, with an address for
Luxembourg.                                                              service in Luxembourg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
      of First Instance of the European Communities on                   —     set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
      11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00;                                        of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                               11 January 2002 in Case T-210/00;
—     uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;
      and                                                                —     uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;
                                                                               and
—     order the defendant to pay the entire costs.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the entire costs.
Pleas and main arguments
—     Infringement of Article 300(7) EC: should the question as          Pleas and main arguments
      to whether the WTO Agreements have direct effect, quod
      non, be regarded by the Court of Justice as continuing to
      condition the liability of the Community for infringement
                                                                         The pleas and main arguments are similar to those put forward
      of those Agreements, contrary to the requirements and
                                                                         in Case C-93/02 P (1).
      scope of Article 300(7) EC, the appellant requests the
      Court of Justice, after having failed to persuade the Court
      of First Instance and relying on its role of maintaining the
                                                                         (1) See p. 38 of this Official Journal.
      unity of the interpretation of Community law, to develop
      its case-law and acknowledge that all or part of the WTO
      Agreements have direct effect.


title: Case C-314/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu — Poland) — Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu (Income tax legislation — Right to deduct social security contributions from the basis of assessment for tax — Right to a tax reduction on the basis of health insurance contributions paid — Refusal where contributions are paid in a Member State other than the State of taxation — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Judgment of the national constitutional court — Unconstitutionality of provisions of national law — Deferral of the date on which those provisions are to lose their binding force — Primacy of Community law — Implications for the national court)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu — Poland) — Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
   (Case C-314/08) (1)

   (Income tax legislation - Right to deduct social security contributions from the basis of assessment for tax - Right to a tax reduction on the basis of health insurance contributions paid - Refusal where contributions are paid in a Member State other than the State of taxation - Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Judgment of the national constitutional court - Unconstitutionality of provisions of national law - Deferral of the date on which those provisions are to lose their binding force - Primacy of Community law - Implications for the national court)
   2010/C 24/14
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Krzysztof Filipiak

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Poznaniu — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 43 of the EC Treaty — National income-tax legislation restricting social insurance contributions deductible from the basis of assessment, and health insurance contributions deductible from tax, solely to contributions paid in the Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude national legislation under which the possibility for a resident taxpayer to obtain, first, a deduction from the basis of assessment in the amount of social security contributions paid in the tax year and, second, a reduction of the income tax which he is liable to pay by the amount of health insurance contributions paid in that period, exists solely when those contributions are paid in the Member State of taxation, while such advantages are refused in the case where those contributions are paid in another Member State, even though those contributions were not deducted in that other Member State.

               2.

               In those circumstances, the primacy of Community law obliges the national court to apply Community law and to refuse to apply conflicting provisions of national law, irrespective of the judgment of the national constitutional court which has deferred the date on which those provisions, held to be unconstitutional, are to lose their binding force.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Removal from the register of Case T-264/94 (1999/C 1/36)

text:
C 1/18               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                4.1.1999
With regard to the pleas in law and main arguments upon                    Removal from the register of Case T-68/94 (1)
which he relies, the applicant merely states that:                                           (1999/C 1/35)
Ð he started once again to draw his retirement pension
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    at the age of 54; consequently, there appear to be
    justifiable reasons for recalculating that pension;
                                                                    By order of 23 October 1998 the President of the Fourth
Ð he was unable to apply for the transfer of the pension            Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First
    rights in issue until such time as he had the                   Instance of the European Communities ordered the
    opportunity of acquiring them by voluntary                      removal from the register of Case T-68/94: Edoard Arends
    contributions, which recently became possible in                v. Commission of the European Communities.
    France. He considers in that regard that it is
    particularly unjust and inconsistent, in view of the            (1) OJ C 103, 11.4.1994.
    events which have occurred, to invoke a time-bar
    against him. In addition, the meagreness of his pension
    is such that, in his view, an exception should be made
    in his case, that exception being justifiable on the
    ground of ordinary common sense;
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-264/94 (1)
Ð he does not enjoy the benefit of Community medical
                                                                                (1999/C 1/36)
    cover, even though he is no longer covered under any
    national scheme.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Lastly, the applicant states that he is not in receipt of any
invalidity pension, despite the fact that his invalidity has        By order of 3 November 1998 the President of the Fourth
been recognised by the Commission. He pleads in that                Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First
regard infringement of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations,         Instance of the European Communities ordered the
which he had asked to be applied to him, inasmuch as the            removal from the register of Case T-264/94: A. G. van den
Commission refused that request on the pretext of his               Akker v. Council of the European Union and Commission
future removal from his post, at a time when he was still           of the European Communities.
an official.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 275, 1.10.1994.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-9/96 and T-211/96, Européenne Automobile SARL v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor-vehicles — Examination of complaints — Action for a declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for compensation)

text:
C 102/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 4. Orders the applicant to bear the costs of Case T-190/95. Each
                                                                                of the parties is ordered to bear its own costs relating to Case
                                                                                T-45/96.
                         of 13 December 1999
                                                                            (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995 and C 145, 18.5.1996.
in Joined Cases T-190/95 and T-45/96, Société de Distri-
bution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles (Sodima) v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Distribution of motor-vehicles — Examin-                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ation of complaints — Action for declaration for failure to
act, for annulment and for compensation — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                of 13 December 1999
                            (2000/C 102/35)                                 in Joined Cases T-9/96 and T-211/96, Européenne Auto-
                                                                            mobile SARL v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
                                                                            (Competition — Distribution of motor-vehicles — Examin-
                      (Language of the case: French)                        ation of complaints — Action for a declaration of failure to
                                                                                act, for annulment and for compensation)
In Joined Cases T-190/95 and T-45/95: Société de Distribution                                         (2000/C 102/36)
de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles (Sodima), established in Istres,
France, represented by Dominique Rafoni, liquidator and
Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                                     (Language of the case: French)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
Rue Béatrix de Bourbon, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: initially Giuliano Marenco and Guy                     In Joined Cases T-9/96 and T-211/96, Européenne Automobile
Charrier, then Giuliano Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — Appli-                   SARL, established in Carcassonne, France, represented by
cation for, first, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully             Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar with an address for
failed to define its position following a complaint by the                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz,
applicant under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81                 4 Rue Béatrix Bourbon, v Commission of the European
EC) and under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of                      Communities (Agents: initially Giuliano Marenco and Guy
12 December 1984 on the application of Article 85(3) of the                 Charrier, then Giuliano Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — Appli-
EEC Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution              cation for annulment of the Commission Decision of 9 Octob-
and servicing agreements (OJ 1985 L 15, p. 16); secondly,                   er 1996 dismissing a complaint by the applicant under Article
annulment of an alleged implied refusal to notify the facts of              85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and for compensation
the case to the applicant; thirdly, annulment of an alleged                 for damage — The Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
implied decision to join the applicant’s complaint with other               composed of B. Vesterdorf, President and J. Pirrung and
complaints; and, fourthly, compensation for damage — The                    M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Ves-                has given a judgment on 13 December 1999, in which it:
terdorf, President and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December 1999, in                     1. Dismisses the application in Case T-211/96;
which it:
                                                                            2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs of Case T-211/96;
1. Dismisses the application in Case T-190/95 as inadmissible;              3. Orders Case T-9/96 to be struck off the register;
                                                                            4. Orders the Commission to bear the costs of Case T-9/96.
2. Rules that there is no further need to decide on the application
     for failure to act in Case T-45/96;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996 and C 54, 22.2.1997.
3. Dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-45/96 as
     inadmissible.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 October 1996 in Case T-330/94: Salt Union Ltd. v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Refusal of the Commission to propose 'appropriate measures' pursuant to Article 93 (1) of the Treaty - Action for annulment - Inadmissible)

text:
23 . 11 . 96          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354 /25
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             ( Denmark ), 0rskov Christensens Staalskibsværft A/S,
                     of 16 October 1996                             established in Frederikshavn ( Denmark ), Aarhus Flydedok
                                                                    A/S , established in Århus ( Denmark ), represented by
in Case T-378/94: Josephus Knijff v. Court of Auditors of           Jan-Erik Svensson , of the Copenhagen Bar, with an address
                the European Communities (')                        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe
(Officials — Members of the temporary staff recruited in            Dupont, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the
consultation with the National Audit Institutions —                 Kingdom of Denmark ( Agent : Peter Biering ), against
           Application of the rules on their grading)               Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Anders
                         ( 96/C 354/49 )                            Christian Jessen and Ben Smulders ), supported by the
                                                                    Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd
                                                                    Kloke and , at the hearing, Michael Schütte ) and MTW
                (Language of the case: French)                      Schiffswerft GmbH ( formerly Meerestechnik Werft ),
                                                                    established in Wismar ( Germany ), represented by
In Case T-378/94 : Josephus Knijff, formerly a member of            Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch , Rechtsanwälte ,
the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors of the                 Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities, residing at Assenois ( Belgium ),             Chambers of Francois Turk , 13B Avenue Guillaume —
represented by Jean-Paul Noesen , of the Luxembourg Bar,            application for annulment, in whole or in part, of the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's           Commission decision of 1 1 May 1 994 on the payment of the
Chambers at 18 , rue des Glacis v. Court of Auditors of the         second tranche of State aid to MTW Schiffswerft GmbH,
European Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Sténier, Jan             formerly Meerestechnik Werft — the Court of First Instance
Inghelram and Paolo Giusta ) — application for annulment            (Third Chamber , Extended Composition ), composed of
of the decision of 9 February 1994 refusing to adjust the           C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh , A.
applicant's grading, and of the decision of 29 August 1994          Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant — the            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K.          22 October 1996 , in which it:
Lenaerts , President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
                                                                     1 . dismisses the application;
judgment on 16 October 1996 , the operative part of which
is as follows :
                                                                    2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs ofthe proceedings,
 1 . The application is dismissed.                                       including the costs incurred by the intervener, MTW;
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                    3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the
                                                                         Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.
 (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 22 October 1996
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 in Case T-266/94 : Foreningen af Jernskibs- og                                          of 22 October 1996
 Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen and
                                                                     in Case T-330/94 : Salt Union Ltd . v. Commission of the
    Others v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                                European Communities (')
 (State aids — Shipbuilding — Exceptional rules —
    Shipyards in the former German Democratic Republic)              (State aid — Refusal of the Commission to propose
                                                                      'appropriate measures ' pursuant to Article 93 (1) of the
                            96/ C 354/50
                                                                          Treaty — Action for annulment — Inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/51
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 In Case T-266/94 : Foreningen af Jernskibs- og
 Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen,
 established in Copenhagen, Assens Skibsværft A/S,                   In Case T-330/94 : Salt Union Ltd ., established in Cheshire
 established in Assens ( Denmark ), Burmeister & Wain                ( United Kingdom ), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig
 Skibsværft A/S , established in Copenhagen, Danyard A/S ,           Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in
 established in Frederikshavn ( Denmark ), Fredericia                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden , 8
 Skibsværft A/S , established in Fredericia ( Denmark ),             Boulevard Royal, supported by Verein Deutsche
 Odense Staalskibsværft A/S, established in Odense                    Salzindustrie eV, established in Bonn ( Germany ),
  ( Denmark ), Svendborg Værft A/S, established in Svendborg         represented by Thomas Jestaedt, Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/26            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
and     Walter      Klosterfelde   and    Karsten     Metzlaff,      the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 August
Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in               1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8— 10
Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European                     1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Communities ( Agents : initially Nicholas Khan and
Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Nicholas Khan and Paul Nemitz ),
                                                                     2.   The costs are reserved.
supported by Frima BV, established in The Hague
( Netherlands ), represented initially by Tom Ottervanger, of
the Rotterdam Bar, and Harold Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar,
and then by Tom Ottervanger only, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67
Rue Ermesinde, application for annulment of the decision
contained in a letter of 5 August 1994 in which the                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission stated that it had found no reason to propose                                   of 4 October 1996
' appropriate measures ' pursuant to Article 93 ( 1 ) of the EC
Treaty with regard to the Netherlands regional aid scheme            in Case T-197/95 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and
Subsidieregeling regionale investeringsprojecten 1991 —              Sven Ake Henrikson v. Commission of the European
the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber, Extended                                        Communities (')
Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B.                (Common agricultural policy — Sugar beet — Regulation
Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges, J.         (EC) No 1 734/95 — Specific agricultural conversion rate —
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              No conversion rate for Sweden — Action for annulment —:
given a judgment on 22 October 1996 in which it :                                             Inadmissibility)
                                                                                96/C 354/53 )
1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2 . orders Salt Union to pay the costs, including those
     incurred by Frima BV;                                           In Case T-197/95 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening,
                                                                     having its registered office in Malmö ( Sweden ), and Sven
3 . orders Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV to bear its own          Ake Henrikson, residing in Lund ( Sweden), represented by
     costs .                                                         Otfried      Lieberknecht        and      Wolfgang      Kirchhoff,
                                                                     Rechtsanwälte , Düsseldorf, and Michael Schütte ,
                                                                     Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue
                                                                     Guillaume,      against    Commission         of   the  European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and James
                                                                     Macdonald Flett ) — application for the annulment, under
                                                                     Article 173 of the EC Treaty, of Commission Regulation
                                                                     ( EC ) No 1734/95 of 14 July 1995 fixing, for the 1994/95
    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     marketing year, the specific agricultural conversion rate
                                                                     applicable to the minimum sugar beet prices and the
                      of 28 August 1996                              production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector ( OJ
in Case T-112/96 R: Jean-Claude Séché v. Commission of               No 165 , 15 . 7. 1995 , p. 12 ), in so far as that Regulation does
                  the European Communities                           not fix any rate applicable to Sweden — the Court of First
(Officials — Rejection of application for a post and                 Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio ,
appointment of another candidate — Application for                   President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
interim measures — Application for suspension of                     Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 4 October 1996 , the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows :
        operation of a measure — Urgency — None)
                         ( 96/C 354/52 )
                                                                     1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
               (Language of the case: French)                        2 . There is no need to rule on the application for leave to
                                                                         intervene brought by the Kingdom of Sweden .
In Case T-l 12/96 R: Jean-Claude Séché, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities , represented by              3 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall also
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service           bear, jointly and severally, those incurred by the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                  Commission . The Kingdom of Sweden shall bear the
Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European                            costs which it has incurred in bringing its application for
Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                      leave to intervene.
Currall ) — application for suspension of operation of the
decisions of the Commission of 22 May 1996 rejecting the
                                                                     (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
applicant's application for, and appointing another
candidate to, the post of Principal Legal Adviser, declared
vacant by vacancy notice COM/2Q/96 — the President of


title: Case C-94/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello by order of that Court of 4 February 2004 in the case of Federico Cipolla against Rosaria Fazari (neé Portolese)

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello by order of that Court of 4 February 2004 in the case of Federico Cipolla against Rosaria Fazari (neé Portolese)
   (Case C-94/04)
   (2004/C 94/62)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello (Italy) of 4 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 25 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Federico Cipolla against Rosaria Fazari (neé Portolese) on the following questions:

               —

               Does the principle of competition under Community law, as set out in Articles 10, 81 and 82 EC, also apply to the provision of legal services?

               —

               Does that principle permit a lawyer's remuneration to be agreed between the parties, with binding effect?

               —

               Does that principle preclude an absolute prohibition of derogation from lawyers' fees?


title: Case T-290/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark METRONIA — Earlier national figurative trade mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)
   (Case T-290/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark METRONIA - Earlier national figurative trade mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/58)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Riera Blanco, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1315/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metronia, SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1315/2006-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG;

               3.

               Orders Metronia SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2001 in Case T-142/00: Michel Van Huffel v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Access to internal competitions — Contracts with undertakings — Competition notice — Condition for admission requiring membership of the staff covered by the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 44/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.2.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 November 2001
                     of 15 November 2001
                                                                          in Case T-194/99: Cristiano Sebastiani v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case T-128/99: Signal Communications Ltd v Office for                  (Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Absence —
Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                   Consideration of comparative merits)
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/21)
(Community trade mark — Word mark TELEYE — Appli-                                             (Language of the case: French)
cation accompanied by a claim of priority on the basis of
the earlier mark TELEEYE — Request for correction —
              Substantial alteration of the mark)
                                                                          In Case T-194/99: Cristiano Sebastiani, residing in Brussels,
                                                                          represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          (2002/C 44/20)                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                          dis-Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment
                                                                          of the decision of the Commission not to promote the
                                                                          applicant to Grade A 6 in the 1998 promotions procedure —
                  (Language of the case: English)                         the Court of First Instance (Single Judge); J. Palacio González,
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 Nov-
                                                                          ember 2001, in which it:
                                                                          1.    annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the
                                                                                applicant to Grade A 6 in the 1998 promotions procedure;
In Case T-128/99: Signal Communications Ltd, established in               2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Hong Kong (China), represented by J. Grayston and A. Bywater,
Lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks              (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: F. López de Rego and
G. Humphreys) — action brought against the decision of
24 March 1999 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (Case R 219/1998-1), notified to the applicant on
25 March 1999 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R.M. Moura                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Ramos and V. Tiili, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 November 2001, in
which it:                                                                                of 15 November 2001
                                                                          in Case T-142/00: Michel Van Huffel v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of 24 March 1999 of the First Board of
      Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                          (Officials — Access to internal competitions — Contracts
      (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case R 219/1998-1);
                                                                          with undertakings — Competition notice — Condition for
                                                                          admission requiring membership of the staff covered by the
                                                                                Staff Regulations)
2.    Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
      applicant.
                                                                                (2002/C 44/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                          In Case T-142/00: Michel Van Huffel, member of the tempor-
                                                                          ary staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          residing in Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented by
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 44/13
J.N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Wael-
broeck) application for the annulment of the decision of the
selection board for internal competition COM/TA/99 not to                                          of 11 September 2001
admit the applicant to the tests for that competition — the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
S. Haukka, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, gave a judgment               in Case T-270/99, Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas v
on 15 November 2001, in which it:                                                          Council of the European Union (1)
1.    dismisses the application;
                                                                             (Application for annulment — Natural or legal persons —
2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.                            Measures of direct and individual concern — Council
                                                                             decision under the third paragraph of Article 93(2) of the
                                                                             EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 88(2) EC —
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                                             Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 19 September 2001
in Case T-64/99 DEP: UK Coal plc v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                  In Case T-270/99: Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas, residing
                                                                             in Larissa (Greece), represented by A. Tessas, lawyer, with an
                                                                             address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
                         (Taxation of costs)
                                                                             European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and D. Zachariou) sup-
                                                                             ported by Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and P. Mylono-
                           (2002/C 44/23)                                    poulos) — application for the annulment of the Council
                                                                             decision of 15 December 1998 relating to the taking over by
                                                                             the Hellenic Republic of the debts of certain agricultural
                   (Language of the case: English)                           cooperatives and other agricultural businesses owed to the
                                                                             Agricultural Bank of Greece — the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Extended Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, Presi-
                                                                             dent, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and
In Case T-64/99 DEP: UK Coal plc, formerly RJB Mining plc,                   J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
established in Harworth (United Kingdom), represented by                     11 September 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and N. Khan) — application for
taxation of the costs to be paid by the defendant to the                     1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
applicant pursuant to the order of the Court of First Instance
of 25 July 2000 in Case T-64/99 RJB Mining v Commission
(not published in the ECR) — the Court of First Instance                     2.    The applicants shall pay their own costs and those of the
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                                defendant;
A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and
J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
19 September 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:                3.    The Hellenic Republic shall pay its own costs.
The amount of costs recoverable by the applicant in Case T-64/99
shall be GBP 13 000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case C-469/99: Action brought on 7 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
19.2.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/23
    Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 3 June 1990           Pleas in law and main arguments
    on package travel, package holidays and package tours (1)
    so far as concerns passenger shipping companies, the               Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), a
    Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under       directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
    that directive;                                                    each Member State to which it is addressed. A Member State
                                                                       must adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure the effective
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        application of directives, in accordance with the objectives
                                                                       pursed by them, and may not plead provisions, practices or
                                                                       circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        justify a failure to comply with its obligations or time-limits
                                                                       under those directives.
The Greek authorities announced that they would amend
Article 7 of the Presidential Decree so that the obligation to         It is undisputed that the Italian Republic was to provide the
insure laid down therein would also cover passenger shipping           Commission with the information required under Article 8(3)
companies.                                                             of Directive 91/689/EEC in the manner prescribed by Decision
                                                                       96/302/EC.
The Commission considers that it is the task of the Greek              It has failed to do so, nor does the Commission consider itself
authorities to undertake in good time the procedures necessary         to have properly received the information following the
in order for the provisions of the directive at issue to be            reasoned opinion.
transposed fully into Greek law.
                                                                       The Commission therefore finds that the Italian Republic has
The Commission states that up until now the Hellenic Republic          failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
has failed to adopt the appropriate measures for the full
incorporation into Greek law of Article 7 of Directive
90/314/EEC so far as concerns shipping companies.                      (1) Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazard-
                                                                           ous waste. OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
                                                                       (2) Commission Decision 96/302/EC of 17 April 1996.
(1) OJ No L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
                                                                       für Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by order of that court of
                                                                       9 September 1999 in the case of CLEAN CAR Autoservice
Action brought on 7 December 1999 by the Commission                    GmbH against (1) the City of Vienna and (2) the Republic
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                                             of Austria
                         (Case C-469/99)                                                          (Case C-472/99)
                          (2000/C 47/37)                                                           (2000/C 47/38)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 December
                                                                       Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna), of
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       9 September 1999, received at the Court Registry on
represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
                                                                       9 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the Legal
                                                                       CLEAN CAR Autoservice GmbH against (1) the City of Vienna
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                       and (2) the Republic of Austria, on the following question:
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       Where, as in the present case, a Member State (Austria) has
                                                                       not prescribed any national rules enabling national courts to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            decide and to award or, as the case may be, to apportion, in
                                                                       relation to the parties to the proceedings, the costs of a
— Declare that, by failing to provide the Commission with              reference for a preliminary ruling, how is Article 104(5) of the
    the information required under Article 8(3) of Council             Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European
    Directive 91/689/EEC (1), in the format established in             Communities (1) to be interpreted?
    Decision 96/302/EC (2), the Italian Republic has failed to
    fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 91/689/EEC
    and the EC Treaty;                                                 (1) OJ C 65 of 6 March 1999, p. 30.
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, by judgment of that court of 23 February 1996 in the case of The Scotch Whisky Association v. La Martiniquaise LM, now called Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de Participation (Cofepp), Prisunic SA, Centrale d'Achats et de Services Alimentaires SARL (Casal) (Case C-136/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/23
Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the            implemented system of declaration can perform that
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                function perfectly well .
                       ( Case C-134/96 )
                                                                    (') OJ No L 178 , 8 . 7. 1988 , p . 5 .
                         ( 96/C 180/49 )
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the
24 April 1996 by the Commission of the European                      European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro and Miguel
Diaz-Llanos La Roche, Legal Advisers, with an address for                                     Case C-135/96 )
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                                      (96/C 180/50 )
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        24 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities , represented by Hendrik van Lier and
1 , declare that, by making subject to an administrative            Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
     authorization the physical exportation of money in             service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la
     cash, notes or bearer cheques in pesetas for foreign           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     currency in an amount exceeding Pta 5 million, the
     Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
     under Council Directive 88/361 /EEC ( 1 ) and, as from         the Court should :
     1 January 1994 , Articles 73b and 73d of the EC
     Treaty;                                                        — declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
                                                                        adopt the laws , regulations and administrative measures
                                                                        necessary in order to comply with Commission Directive
2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                       91 /659/EEC adapting to technical progress Annex I to
                                                                        Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of
Fleas in law and main arguments                                         the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
                                                                        the Member States relating to restrictions on the
                                                                        marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and
Since Directive 88/361 /EEC does not set any specific limits,
                                                                        preparations ( asbestos ) ('), the Kingdom of Belgium has
the free movement of capital must be interpreted in the
                                                                        failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
broadest sense possible and not otherwise . That
interpretation may be extracted from the wording of the             — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
introduction to the nomenclature in Annex I to the
Directive . That conclusion is corroborated by the wording          Pleas in law and main arguments
of the new Article 73b of the EC Treaty which prohibits all
restrictions on the movement of capital between Member              The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
States and between Member States and third countries .              paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty is such as to
Article 73d 1 ( b ) nonetheless explains that Article 73b is to     oblige Member States to whom directives are addressed to
be without prejudice to the right of Member States to apply         adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of
the requisite measures to prevent infringement of national          such directives within the time limit prescribed therein. The
law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and     time limit in question expired, on 1 January 1993 but the
prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay         Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the necessary
down procedures for the declaration of capital movements            measures .
for purposes of administrative or statistical information, or
to take measures which are justified on grounds of public           (') OJ No L 363 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 36 .
policy or public security. The concept of 'requisite measure'
meets the requirement of proportionality which must
characterize any measure which involves an exception to a
freedom recognized by the Treaty .
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                    Grande Instance, Paris, by judgment of that court of
The Spanish authorities allege tax fraud, terrorism and             23 February 1996 in the case of The Scotch Whisky
money laundering, which is often linked to drugs                    Association v. La Martiniquaise LM, now called
trafficking, that is to say, problems which affect all the          Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de
Member States and which constitute a real public order              Participation ( Cofepp ), Prisunic SA, Centrale d'Achats et de
threat in those States . Once it is acknowledged that the                        Services Alimentaires SARL ( Casai )
objective is lawful, in order to ascertain whether the
requirement of authorization is proportional , methods of                                    ( Case C- 1 3 6/96 )
supervision which allow the objective itself of preventing                                     ( 96/C 180/51 )
infringement of national law and regulations, but which
hinder to a lesser extent movements of capital should be            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
considered . The Commission is of the view that a properly          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
 ---pagebreak---  No C 180/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22 . 6 . 96
 Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Paris, of 23 February                   Communities on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 25 April               European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Scotch                Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
 Whisky Association v. La Martiniquaise LM, now called                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
 Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de                              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
 Participation ( Cofepp ), Prisunic SA, Centrale d'Achats et de
 Services Alimentaires SARL ( Casai ) on the following                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
 question:
                                                                            1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
 Having regard to European rules, in particular Article 5 of                      adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 i 1 ),                      Directive 92/116/EEC ( 1 ), the Federal Republic of
 may the generic term 'whisky' be included in the trade name                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 of spirit drinks consisting entirely of whisky diluted with                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 water, so that the alcoholic strength by volume is less than
 40° ?
                                                                           2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 C ) OJ No L 160, 12 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments .
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                           in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ), the time limit for transposition expired
 Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  on 1 January 1994 .
 European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                  Germany                                  (') OJ No L 62 , 1993 , p . 1 .
                            ( Case C-137/96 )                              ( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .
                               ( 96/C 180/52 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 Communities on 24 April 1 996 by the Commission of the
 European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 March 1996 in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the               the case of Finanzamt Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.                                                            Langhorst
                                                                                Case C-141 /96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                            ( 96/C 180/54 )
 1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 91 /414/EEC ('), the Federal Republic of                 European Communities by an order of the Fifth Senate of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC          the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 14 March
       Treaty and under that Directive;                                    1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
                                                                           1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard Langhorst on the following
                                                                          questions :
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                  1 . Is it permissible under Article 22 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth
in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ); the time limit for transposition expired                 Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
on 27 July 1993 .                                                                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                to turnover taxes (the Sixth Directive ) ( J ) for a credit
(M OJ No L 230 , 1991 , p . 1 .                                                  note within the meaning of paragraph 14 ( 5 ) of the
( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .                                      Umsatzsteuergesetz ( Law on turnover tax) 1980 to be
                                                                                regarded as an invoice or other document serving as
                                                                                invoice ( Article 21 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Sixth Directive )?
Action brought on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  2 . If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative : Is it
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                             permissible under Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive
                                  Germany                                        for a person who accepts a credit note showing a higher
                                                                                amount of tax than that owed by reason of taxable
                           ( Case C- 1 3 8/96 )                                  transactions, and does not contradict in that respect the
                              ( 96/C 180/53 )                                    mention of tax in the credit note, to be regarded as a
                                                                                person who mentions value-added tax on an invoice or
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            other document serving as invoice and is therefore liable
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                              to pay that value added tax ?