title: Case C-119/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato, Italy) — Ministero dell'Industria, del Commercio e dell'Artigianato v Lucchini SpA, formerly Lucchini Siderurgica SpA (State Aid — ECSC — Steel industry — Aid declared incompatible with the common market — Recovery — Whether a judgment of a national court has the authority of res judicata )

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato, Italy) — Ministero dell'Industria, del Commercio e dell'Artigianato v Lucchini SpA, formerly Lucchini Siderurgica SpA
   (Case C-119/05) (1)

   (State Aid - ECSC - Steel industry - Aid declared incompatible with the common market - Recovery - Whether a judgment of a national court has the authority of res judicata)
   (2007/C 211/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ministero dell'Industria, del Commercio e dell'Artigianato

      Respondent: Lucchini SpA, formerly Lucchini Siderurgica SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Recovery of aid declared incompatible with the common market and contrary to Commission Decision No 3484/85/ECSC of 27 November 1985 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel industry (OJ 1985 L 340, p. 1) — Obligation on the State to recover the aid notwithstanding a final civil judgment to the contrary
   Operative part of the judgment
   Community law precludes the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 2909 of the Italian Codice Civile (Civil Code), which seeks to lay down the principle of res judicata in so far as the application of that provision prevents the recovery of State aid granted in breach of Community law which has been found to be incompatible with the common market in a decision of the Commission of the European Communities which has become final.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Case T-495/07: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — PROAS v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for penetration bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements — Translation of the statement of objections — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Reasonable time — Res judicata)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/14

         Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — PROAS v European Commission
   (Case T-495/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements - Translation of the statement of objections - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Reasonable time - Res judicata)
   2013/C 336/27
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Productos Asfálticos (PROAS), SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented: initially by C. Fernández Vicién, A. Pereda Miquel and P. Carmona Botana, then C. Fernández Vicién and A. Pereda Miquel and finally C. Fernández Vicién, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, assisted initially by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, and M. Heenan Bróna, Solicitor, then J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers, and finally J. Rivas Andrés)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Decision C(2007) 4441 final of the Commission, of 3 October 2007, relating to a procedure of application of Article 81 (EC) [Case COMP/38.710 — Bitumen (Spain)], and the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Dismisses the claim of the European Commission seeking an increase of the amount of the fine.

               3.

               Orders Productos Asfálticos (PROAS), SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-467/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/52

         Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission
   (Case T-467/07)
   (2008/C 51/96)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Du Pont de Nemours (France) SAS (Puteaux, France), Du Pont Portugal — Serviços, sociedade unipessoal, Ld.a (Lisbon, Portugal), Du Pont Ibérica SL (Barcelona, Spain), E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co (Wilmington, United States), Du Pont de Nemours Italiana SRL (Milan, Italy), Du Pont De Nemours (Nederland) BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands), Du Pont de Nemours (Deutschland) GmbH (Bad Homburg v.d. Höhe, Germany), DuPont Poland sp. z o. o. (Warsaw, Poland), DuPont Romania SRL (Bucharest, Rumania), DuPont International Operations SARL (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland), Du Pont de Nemours International SA (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland), DuPont Solutions (France) SAS (Puteaux, France), Du Pont Agro Hellas AE (Halandri, Greece) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and I. Antypas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the annulment of the Commission decision of 19 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of methomyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance;

               —

               condemn the Community as represented here by the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested decision and to set the amount of this compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants currently estimated at approximately EUR 52,5 million; or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be suffered by the applicants as further established by them in the course of this procedure especially to take due account of future damage;

               —

               in the alternative, order the parties to produce to the Court within a reasonable period of time of the date of the judgment figures as to the amount of the compensation arrived at by agreement between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, to order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their conclusions with detailed figures;

               —

               order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, be paid on the amount payable as from the date of the Court's judgment until actual payment;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) provides that Member States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/628/EC of 19 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of methomyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (2). The applicants further request compensation for the alleged damages caused by the contested decision.
   In support of their application for annulment, the applicants submit that the contested decision is adopted on the basis of an incomplete and manifestly incorrect risk assessment of methomyl, whereby the Commission did not take into account information that was available to it since September 2005.
   The applicants allege that the Commission misused its powers and infringed the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC and the principles of proportionality, sound administration, legal certainty, legitimate expectations and non-discrimination as well as the applicants' right to be heard and the duty to state reasons.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 255, p. 40.


title: Case T-70/15: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU — Setting of fees by the Split Port Authority for port services in respect of domestic traffic at maximum levels — Rejection of a complaint — Case being dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State — No EU interest)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission
   (Case T-70/15) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU - Setting of fees by the Split Port Authority for port services in respect of domestic traffic at maximum levels - Rejection of a complaint - Case being dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - No EU interest))
   (2016/C 419/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 9236 final of 28 November 2014, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning infringements of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by the Split Port Authority or of Articles 102 and 106 TFEU committed by the Republic of Croatia or the Split Port Authority (Case AT.40199 — Port of Split).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Trajektna luka Split d.d. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Action brought on 20 February 1995 by the Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-48/95)

text:
No C 101/20         HEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              22 . 4 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Lastly, the contested Regulation is in breach of the Lomé
                                                                     Convention, inasmuch as neither the purpose nor the effect
— annul the contested regulation, with all the legal                 of Protocol 5 to the Convention and the preamble thereto
      consequences flowing therefrom, and order the                  is to place non-traditional bananas in a less favourable
      Commission to pay the costs.                                   position than their Latin American competitors.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, three companies handling the importation
and marketing of 70% of the banana production of the
Côte d'Ivoire, contest Commission Regulation (EC )
No 3224/94, inasmuch as it disregards the provisions of the          Action brought on 20 February 1995 by the Bundesverband
basic regulation in the banana sector.                               der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Following the adoption by the Council of Regulation ( EEC )                                   (Case T-48/95 )
No 404/93 on the common organization of the market in                                          ( 95/C 101/40 )
bananas, a number of Latin American banana-producing
countries applied, pursuant to Article XXIII ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of
GATT, for the setting up of a panel, which found that the                            (Language of the case: German)
Community rules in the matter were incompatible in several
respects with GATT, in particular those relating to specific         An action against the Commission of the European
duties paid on the importation of bananas, preferential              Communities was brought before the Court of First
rights granted by the EEC to ACP countries in respect of             Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
bananas and the grant of import licences allowing access to          1995 by the Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie
imports within the framework of the tariff quota provided            eV of Cologne (Federal Republic of Germany), represented
for .                                                                by Jochen Burrichter, Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
In those circumstances, the Commission negotiated with               Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
Costa Rica, Colombia, Nicaragua and Venezuela a
Framework Agreement on Bananas which was initialled in
Brussels and annexed to the Marrakesh General Agreement              The applicant claims that the Court should:
on the WTO . That Framework Agreement had the effect, in
particular, of modifying the rules governing the global tariff       — annul Articles 1,2, 3 ( 3 ), 4 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) (a ) and 9 ( 5 ) of
quota . The operative part of the contested regulation sets              the Decision of the Commission of 30 November 1994
out, for all practical purposes, the provisions of the                   ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement),
Framework Agreement.
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant companies plead, first, an infringement of
essential procedural requirements, in that the contested             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
regulation was adopted, contrary to the provisions of
Article 27 of the basic Regulation, without the Management             L The applicant pleads infringement of the rules
Committee for Bananas having delivered an opinion within                   governing administrative procedure .
the time allowed by its Chairman.
Moreover, the contested Regulation, which is deemed,                       1 . Substantial parts of the statement of objections
within the legislative hierarchy, to constitute a Regulation                   forming an inseparable whole, namely the so-called
implementing the basic Regulation in the banana sector,                        'national' parts, were not communicated to the
disregards the provisions of that basic Regulation.                            applicant.
According to the applicants, Article 1 of the contested
Regulation, which divides the tariff quota up into specific                2 . It was not clear from the statement of objections
quotas and creates a quota of 90 000 tonnes in favour of the                   which matters were objected to .
Dominican Republic and other ACP States concerning
traditional quantities, and Article 2, which provides, within              3 . The Commission did not give the applicant full
the limits of those quotas, for the release for free circulation               access to the file .
of bananas originating in various Latin American countries,
including bananas dispatched before 20 December 1994,                      4. The Commission changed the factual and legal
are contrary to Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 , which                            nature of the objections made against the applicant
contains no such provisions .                                                  without giving it a fresh opportunity to submit its
                                                                               comments .
If the contested Regulation purports to be based on the
agreements concluded in the course of the Uruguay Round                    5 . The Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to
of multilateral trade negotiations, a further Council                          provide the Advisory Committee on Restrictive
regulation should have been adopted to take account of that                    Practices and Dominant Positions with the full text
international commitment, in so far as the Framework                           of its proposed decision, containing details of the
Agreement derogates from a Council regulation.                                 individual fines .
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 4 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 101 /21
 II. 1 . The applicant contests the Commission's factual              Action brought on 1 March 1995 by Viriato Monteiro
           and legal conclusions regarding its participation          da Silva against the Commission of the European
           in the alleged 'Cembureau agreement'. Those                                         Communities
          conclusions were based on insufficient evidence .
                                                                                (Case T-74/95 )
           According to the principles governing the liability
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /41 )
           of legal persons, the conduct complained of by the
           Commission      cannot    be    attributed   to   the
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: French)
           applicant.
      2. The applicant contests the Commission's factual              An action against the Commission of the European
           and legal conclusions regarding an exchange                Communities was brought before the Court of First
           of information in relation to prices. The                  Instance of the European Communities on 1 March 1995 by
           dissemination of the average prices published by           Viriato Monteiro da Silva, residing in Brussels, represented
           the Federal Statistical Office, details of which are       by Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels
           freely available to the public at large, cannot            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
           constitute a restriction of competition. The               of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
           objections regarding the exchange of price
           information in the course of meetings are based on         The applicant claims that the Court should :
           insufficient evidence .
                                                                      — annul the decision of the Commission of 6 April 1994
      3 . The applicant contests the objection regarding                  fixing Brussels as the applicant's place of recruitment,
           participation in alleged 'agreements on the                    and
           participation of the market' between France and
           Germany. Those objections, which relate to alleged         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           agreements concerning the partition of the market
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           in Saarland and the general regulation of cement
           supplies between France and Germany, are not               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
           substantiated by the evidence adduced . Similarly,         relied on in Case T-33/95 .
           the objections regarding the exchange of statistical
           data between the SFIC and the applicant are based
           on erroneous assumptions of fact.
      4. The applicant did not participate in the alleged                   Removal from the register of Case T-503/93 ( l )
           activities of which the Commission complains
           regarding the Greek cement industry and/or the                                     ( 95/C 101 /42
           protection of the Italian market.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
III. The applicant objects that the imposition of a fine is
      inadmissible, since no intentional or negligent act on          By order of 7 March 1995 the President of the Second
      the part of any representative or employee appointed            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      by law or in accordance with its statutes, or any other         Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      person authorized by it, can be attributed to the               T-503/93 : Alain-Pierre Alio v. Commission of the European
      applicant.                                                      Communities .
                                                                      (M OJ No C 272, 8 . 10 . 1993 .


title: Case C-25/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Alicja Sosnowska v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (VAT — Directives 67/227/EEC and 77/388/EEC — National legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess VAT — Principles of tax neutrality and proportionality — Special derogating measures)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Alicja Sosnowska v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu
   (Case C-25/07) (1)

   (VAT - Directives 67/227/EEC and 77/388/EEC - National legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess VAT - Principles of tax neutrality and proportionality - Special derogating measures)
   (2008/C 260/04)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alicja Sosnowska

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, Article 2 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition, 1967, p. 14), and Articles 18(4) and 27(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National VAT legislation laying down, in relation to the period for refunding overpayments, less favourable rules for taxpayers beginning to carry out taxable operations and registered as taxpayers making intra-Community supplies — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 18(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 2 December 2005, and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to allow investigations required to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, extends from 60 to 180 days, as from the date of submission of the taxable person's VAT return, the period available to the national tax office for repayment of excess VAT to a category of taxable persons, unless those persons lodge a security deposit to a value of PLN 250 000;

               2.

               Provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not constitute ‘special measures for derogation’ intended to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2005/92.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2008.


title: Case T-359/17: Action brought on 7 June 2017 — Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (ALDI)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/41

         Action brought on 7 June 2017 — Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (ALDI)
   (Case T-359/17)
   (2017/C 249/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldo Supermarkets (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Saettel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALDI’ – Application for registration No 12 749 586

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 976/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Existence of contradictory grounds in that the Board of Appeal accepted, in paragraph 18 of the contested decision, that the opposition form contained a colour representation of the earlier mark, and, in paragraph 24 of the contested decision, that the applicant had produced a PDF file showing the colour representation of the mark, although those comments are incompatible with the finding in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the contested decision that, essentially, the applicant had failed to demonstrate the existence of its earlier mark by not providing a colour representation thereof;

               —

               Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principle of audi alteram partem, in that the Board of Appeal noted of its own motion the infringement of Rule 19 of the Implementing Regulation, without hearing the parties on that plea, although the principle of audi alteram partem requires the Boards of Appeal to hear the parties on any plea which they intend to raise of their own motion;

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Implementing Regulation.


title: Case C-179/04: Action brought on 16 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/2

         Action brought on 16 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-179/04)
   (2004/C 168/02)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos, a member of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2000/64/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 November 2000 amending Directives 85/611/EEC, 92/96/EEC and 93/22/EEC as regards exchange of information with third countries, and in any event by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, a Member State may not rely on domestic circumstances or difficulties to justify failure to comply with its obligations and the time-limits prescribed by Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 290 of 17.11.200, p. 27.


title: Case C-73/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (Appeal — State aid — Cancellation of 65 % of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Private creditor test — Limits of judicial review — Substitution by the General Court of its own grounds for those set out in the contested decision — Manifest error of assessment — Distortion of evidence)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
   (Case C-73/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Cancellation of 65 % of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Private creditor test - Limits of judicial review - Substitution by the General Court of its own grounds for those set out in the contested decision - Manifest error of assessment - Distortion of evidence)
   2013/C 71/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, and by O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, L. Armati and B. Martenczuk, Agents), St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (represented by: N. Smaho, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Kosice a.s v European Commission in which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission Decision C(2006) 2087 final, of 7 June 2006, concerning aid granted by Slovakia for Frucona Košice in the form of a cancellation of a tax debt by the competent tax office in a collective bankruptcy procedure (State Aid No C 25/2005, ex NN/2005), in so far as that decision declares that measure incompatible with the common market and orders Slovakia to recover the aid in its entirety

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Košice v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the pleas raised before it on which it did not rule;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-41/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Levob Verzekeringen BV, OV Bank NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2, 5, 6 and 9 — Transfer of software recorded on a carrier — Subsequent customisation of the software to the purchaser's specific requirements — Single taxable supply — Supply of services — Place of supply)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-41/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Levob Verzekeringen BV, OV Bank NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2, 5, 6 and 9 - Transfer of software recorded on a carrier - Subsequent customisation of the software to the purchaser's specific requirements - Single taxable supply - Supply of services - Place of supply)
   (2006/C 22/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-41/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 30 January 2004, received at the Court on 2 February 2004, in the proceedings between Levob Verzekeringen BV, OV Bank NV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court: (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that where two or more elements or acts supplied by a taxable person to a customer, being a typical consumer, are so closely linked that they form objectively, from an economic point of view, a whole transaction, which it would be artificial to split, all those elements or acts constitute a single supply for purposes of the application of VAT;

               2.

               This is true of a transaction by which a taxable person supplies to a consumer standard software previously developed, put on the market and recorded on a carrier and subsequently customises that software to that purchaser's specific requirements, even where separate prices are paid;

               3.

               Article 6(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply such as that referred to in paragraph 2 of this operative part is to be classified as a 'supply of services' where it is apparent that the customisation in question is neither minor nor ancillary but, on the contrary, predominates; such is the case in particular where in the light of factors such as its extent, cost or duration the customisation is of decisive importance in enabling the purchaser to use the customised software;

               4.

               Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a single supply of services such as that referred to in paragraph 3 of this operative part performed for a taxable person established in the Community but not in the same country as the supplier.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 June 1996 in Case T-293/94: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v. Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (Officials - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting an official - Interim appraisal note - Duty to act in good faith - Disciplinary measure)

text:
20 . 7 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 210/ 15
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
                        of 18 June 1996                               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
in Case T-150/94: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.                   Rheinsheim, v . Economic and Social Committee of the
Economic and Social Committee of the European                         European Communities ( Agents : Moises Bermejo Garde
                        Communities ( 1 )                             and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the
(Officials — Actions for annulment of measures and                    decisions of the Secretary-General of the Economic and
compensation — Admissibility — Submission of a                        Social Committee of 6 December 1993 and 22 June 1994
complaint by fax — Staff report — Delay — Statement of                imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of a
reasons for the award ofpoorer marks than in the previous             reprimand and rejecting the complaint lodged against that
             staff report — Non-material damage)                      measure, and for annulment or withdrawal of the appraisal
                          ( 96/C 210/37 )                             report of 5 July 1993 drawn up by the applicant's former
                                                                      superior — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                 (Language of tbe case: French)                       composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
In Case T-150/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, an official        Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
of the Economic and Social Committee of the European                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1996 , in which
                                                                      it :
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort            1 , annuls the decision of the Economic and Social
Rheinsheim, v. Economic and Social Committee of the                        Committee of 6 December 1993 imposing on the
European Communities ( Agents : Moises Bermejo Garde                       applicant the disciplinary measure of a reprimand and
and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment, first,                 the decision of the Economic and Social Committee of
of the decision of the Economic and Social Committee of                    22 June 1 994 rejecting the applicant's complaint against
18 June 1993 concerning the drawing-up of the applicant's                  the decision of 6 December 1993 ;
staff reports for the periods from 1 December 1986 to
31 August 1988 and from 1 September 1988 to 31 August                 2 , dismisses the remainder of the action;
 1990 and, second , of the decision of 13 January 1994
rejecting the complaint against those reports, and for                3 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all
                                                                           the costs .
compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the
applicant as a result of breaches of duty allegedly committed
by the administration in relation to the applicant — the              (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A.
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 June 1996 , in which it :
                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay the
                                                                                of 27 March 1996
     applicant a sum corresponding to BFR 50 000 by way of
     compensation for the non-material damage suffered by             in Joined Cases T-530/93 and others: R. Bathoorn and 213
     her;                                                             Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( ! )
2 , dismisses the remainder of the action ;
                                                                                (Partial removal from the register)
3,   orders the Economic and Social Committee to bear its
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/39 )
     own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the
     applicant, who is ordered to bear one half of her own
     costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 O OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .                                      In Joined Cases T-530/93 to T-533/93 , T-l /94 to T-4/94 ,
                                                                      T-ll /94, T-53/94 and T-71 /94, T-73/94 to T-76/94,
                                                                      T-86/94 and T-87/94, T-91 /94, T-94/94 and T-96/94 ,
                                                                      T-101 /94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94 , T-130/94
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              and T-253/94 : R. Bathoorn and 213 Others, domiciled in
                        of 18 June 1996                               the Netherlands, represented by H. J. Bronkhorst, advocate
in Case T-293/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.                  with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad ( Supreme
Economic and Social Committee of the European                         Court) of the Netherlands, and E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of
                         Communities (')                              the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in
 (Officials — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an              Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue
 official — Interim appraisal note — Duty to act in good faith        Guillaume, v . Council of the European Union ( Agent: A.
                     — Disciplinary measure)                          Brautigam ) and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       ( Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) — application for compensation
                           ( 96/C 210/38 )                            under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
                 (Language of the case: French)                       of the EEC Treaty for the damage which the applicants claim
                                                                      to have suffered as a result of the application of Council
 In Case T-293/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, an official       Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
 of the Economic and Social Committee of the European                 general rules for the application of the levy referred to in


title: Case C-184/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — The Netherlands) — Twoh International BV v Staatssekretaris van Finaciën (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 28c(A)(a), first subparagraph — Intra-Community supplies — Exemption — No obligation on the tax authorities to gather evidence — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance between the competent authorities of the Member States in the area of direct and indirect taxation — Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 — Administrative cooperation in the area of indirect taxation)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — The Netherlands) — Twoh International BV v Staatssekretaris van Finaciën
   (Case C-184/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 28c(A)(a), first subparagraph - Intra-Community supplies - Exemption - No obligation on the tax authorities to gather evidence - Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance between the competent authorities of the Member States in the area of direct and indirect taxation - Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 - Administrative cooperation in the area of indirect taxation)
   (2007/C 297/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Twoh International B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssekretaris van Finaciën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 28c A (a) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 262, p. 1) in conjunction with Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15), as amended by Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), and with Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 of 27 January 1992 on administrative cooperation in the field of indirect taxation (VAT) (OJ 1992 L 24, p. 1) — Sale and transport of goods to another Member State on behalf of the buyer — No communication of relevant information by the competent authority of the Member State of arrival — Whether or not the authorities of the Member State of dispatch are under an obligation to request information from the competent authorities of the Member State of arrival and to take it into account.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, read in conjunction with Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as amended by Council Directive 92/12 EEC of 25 February 1992, and with Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 of 27 January 1992 on administrative cooperation in the field of indirect taxation, does not require the tax authorities of the Member State of dispatch or transport on an intra-Community supply of goods to request information from the authorities of the destination Member State alleged by the supplier.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case C-367/08: Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/11

         Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-367/08)
   (2008/C 260/21)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that Directive;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 102, p. 35.


title: Case C-384/99: Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
8.1.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 6/13
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
(1) set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First                 Centre, Kirchberg.
     Instance on 8 July 1999 in Case T-163/98 Procter &
     Gamble v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
     (trade marks and designs), inasmuch as the Court of First             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
     Instance held that the First Board of Appeal of the Office            the Court should:
     for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and
     designs) had not infringed Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation              — declare that, by failing correctly to transpose Article 5 of
     (EC) No 40/94 (1) by adopting its decision of 31 July 1998                Directive 97/33/EC (1) in conjunction with Annex I to that
     in Case R 35/1998-1;                                                      directive, and to adopt all the measures necessary in
                                                                               order to implement Article 5 of Directive 97/33/EC in
(2) order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                  conjunction with Annexes I and III to that directive, the
     (trade marks and designs) to pay the costs.                               Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under those provisions and under the Treaty establishing
                                                                               the European Community;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Infringement of Community law, in that, by the contested
judgment, the Court of First Instance applied an excessively
wide meaning to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on                  Pleas in law and main arguments
the Community trade mark: the Court of First Instance merely
found that the term ‘Baby-Dry’ simply contained, indications
which may serve in trade to designate the intended purpose of              Under the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first
the goods concerned, without determining the question wheth-               paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty, together with Article
er that term is capable of distinguishing the goods concerned              23 of Directive 97/33/EC, Belgium was required to adopt, by
as being produced by a particular undertaking. On a proper                 no later than 31 December 1997, the measures necessary in
interpretation of the ground of nullity laid down in Article               order to comply with that directive. The Commission claims
7(1)(c), registration as an individual trade mark cannot be                that Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5
refused in respect of a sign the descriptive nature of which is            of the directive, in that it has:
such that it can only be understood as describing the product
concerned or one of its characteristics. That is the teleological          — extended the scope of services which may be financed in
or synthetic interpretation, excluding any presumption of                      respect of universal service to cover the provision of
unfitness for purpose which may affect descriptive signs,                      services at preferential rates in favour of the press media;
which has been upheld by leading case-law in various Member
States, such as the Benelux States, France and Germany, in                 — provided for a method of calculating the contributions of
which a trade mark right is not regarded as a monopoly right,                  operators to the financing of the net cost of universal
as is confirmed by, inter alia, the effect of First Council Directive          service which is incomplete and does not reflect the
88/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws                         transparency obligations defined in Article 5(1) of Directive
of the Member States relating to trade marks (2).                              97/33/EC: the decree intended to specify the method of
                                                                               calculating the net cost of universal service and the
                                                                               method of calculating the basis on which operators are to
(1) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
                                                                               contribute to its financing has not yet been adopted and
                                                                               published; at all events, it has not been notified to the
                                                                               Commission;
                                                                           — provided for an incorrect method of calculating the net
                                                                               cost of universal service: in particular, this does not take
                                                                               into account the ‘intangible’ benefits linked to the provision
                                                                               of universal service (thus failing to comply with Article
Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission                             5(4) of the directive); nor does it take into account all the
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             accounting principles laid down in Annex III to Directive
                              Belgium                                          97/33/EC: the concept of avoidable net cost, the taking
                                                                               into account of forecast, not historic, costs and receipts,
                                                                               the taking into account of direct and indirect receipts
                        (Case C-384/99)                                        inherent in the provision of each of the services financed
                                                                               in respect of universal service.
                          (2000/C 6/25)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 199 of 26.7.1997, p. 32.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Barry Doherty, of its Legal


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 12 June 1996 in Case C-95/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille): URSSAF (Union de Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et d'Allocations Familiales) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique de la Pointe Rouge SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Lack of jurisdiction of Court of Justice)

text:
No C 354/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 11 . 96
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   4 . If a Member State allows the package travel organizer
                        of 8 October 1996                                  and/or retailer party to a contract to require payment of
                                                                           a deposit of up to 10% towards the travel price, with a
in Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94 , C-188/94, C-189/94                    maximum of DM 500, the protective purpose pursued
and C- 190/94 ( references for a preliminary ruling from the               by Article 7 of Directive 90/314/EEC is not satisfied
Landgericht Bonn ): Erich Dillenkofer and Others v. Federal                unless a refund of that deposit is also guaranteed in the
                     Republic of Germany ( 1 )                             event of the insolvency of the package travel organizer
(Directive 90/3 14/EEC on package travel, package holidays                 and/or retailer party to the contract.
and package tours — Non-transposition — Liability of the
   Member State and its obligation to make reparation)
                           ( 96/C 354/22 )
                                                                       5 . Article 7 of Directive 90/3 1 4/EEC is to be interpreted as
                                                                           meaning that the 'security ' of which organizers must
                                                                           offer sufficient evidence is lacking even if, on payment of
                (Language of the case: German)                             the travel price, travellers are in possession of
                                                                           documents of value and that the Federal Republic of
                                                                           Germany could not have omitted altogether to
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               transpose Directive 90/314/EEC on the basis of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                         Bundesgerichtshofs 'advance payment ' judgment of
                                                                            72 March 1987.
In Joined Cases C-178/94 , C-179/94 , C-188/94 , C-189/94
and C - 190/94 : references to the Court under Article 177 of          6 . Directive 90/314/EEC does not require Member States
the EC Treaty from the Landgericht [ Regional Court] Bonn                  to adopt specific measures in relation to Article 7 in
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                 order to protect package travellers against their own
that court between Erich Dillenkofer, Christian Erdmann,                   negligence.
Hans-Jiirgen Schulte , Anke Heuer, Werner, Ursula and
Torsten Knor and the Federal Republic of Germany — on
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
the interpretation of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of
13 June 1990 on package travel , package holidays and
package tours ( OJ No L 158 , 1990 , p. 59 ) — the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray and L.
Sevon ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
Kapteyn , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a
judgment on 8 October 1996 , in which it ruled :                                              ( Third Chamber )
                                                                                of 12 June 1996
1 . Failure to take any measure to transpose a directive in            in Case C-95/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
      order to achieve the result it prescribes within the period      Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille ): URSSAF ( Union de
                                                                       Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
      laid down for that purpose constitutes per se a serious
      breach of Community law and consequently gives rise to           d'Allocations Familiales ) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique
      a right of reparation for individuals suffering injury if                           de la Pointe Rouge SA (')
      the result prescribed by the directive entails the grant to      (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack ofjurisdiction of
      individuals of rights whose content is identifiable and a                                Court ofJustice)
      causal link exists between the breach of the State 's                                      ( 96/C 354/23 )
      obligation and the loss and damage suffered.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . The result prescribed by Article 7 of Council Directive
      90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,
      package holidays and package tours entails the grant to          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      package travellers of rights guaranteeing a refund of                     published in the European Court Reports)
      money paid over and their repatriation in the event of
      the organizer 's insolvency; the content of those rights is
      sufficiently identifiable.                                       In Case C-95 /96 : reference under Article 177 of the EC
                                                                       Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce [ Commercial Court],
                                                                       Marseille ( France ) for a preliminary ruling in the case
3 . In order to comply with Article 9 of Directive                     pending before that court between URSSAF ( Union de
      90/314/EEC, the Member State should have adopted,                Recouvrement des         Cotisations  de  Securite    Sociale   et
      within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary         d'Allocations     Familiales )    des Bouches-du-Rhone        and
      to ensure that, as from 1 January 1993 , individuals             Clinique de la Pointe Rouge SA on the question whether it is
      would have effective protection against the risk of the          possible to request the opening of proceedings for
    ' insolvency of the organizer and/'or retailer party to the        redressement judiciaire ( judicial settlement ) in respect of a
      contract.                                                        defendant who has been acquitted , where the damage
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96        1 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/ 13
suffered as a result of his wrongful imprisonment has not yet                           ORDER OF THE COURT
been made good — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                                         ( Fourth Chamber )
of J. -P. Puissochet, President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida ( Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; A. Pergola ,                                     of 11 July 1996
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               in Case C-325 /94 P: An Taisce — The National Trust for
12 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :            Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF ) v.
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the              (Appeal — Actionable decision — Appeal clearly
question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                                       unfounded)
Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996.                                                ( 96/C 354/25 )
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-325/94 P : An Taisce — The National Trust for
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                      Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF )
                        ( Third Chamber )                             (represented by George Berrisch ) — appeal against the
                         of 12 June 1996                              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 23 September 1994 in
in Case C-96/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the         Case T-461 /93 between An Taisce and WWF UK and the
Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille ): URSSAF ( Union de                Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-733 , seeking to have that
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
d'Allocations Familiales ) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique           the Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                           Florens SA (M                              Carmel O'Reilly and Marc van der Woude ) — the Court
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack ofjurisdiction of          ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris , President
                         Court ofJustice)                             of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                           ( 96/C 354/24 )                             ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General ; R.
                                                                      Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 July 1996 in
                                                                      which it :
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the appeal;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs .
In Case C - 95/96 : reference under Article 177 of the EC
                                                                       (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce [Commercial Court],
Marseille ( France ) for a preliminary ruling in the case
pending before that court between URSSAF ( Union de
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
d' Allocations Familiales )       des Bouches-du-Rhone and
Clinique Florens SA on the question whether it is possible to
request the opening of proceedings for redressement                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
judiciaire ( judicial settlement) involving a person who has
                                                                                (First Chamber )
been charged with and acquitted of a criminal offence,
where the damage suffered as a result of his wrongful                                      of 17 September 1996
 imprisonment has not yet been made good — the Court                   in Case C-19/95 P: San Marco Impex Italiana Sri v.
 ( Third Chamber), composed ofJ. -P. Puissochet, President of                 Commission of the European Communities ( J )
 Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C.
 Gulmann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; R.                  (Appeal — Public work contract — Article 178 and the
 Grass, Registrar, made an order on 12 June 1996 , the                        second paragraph of Article 215 of the Teaty)
 operative part of which is as follows :                                                          ( 96/C 354/26 )
 The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the                             (Language of the case: English)
 question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
 Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996 .                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                        In Case C-19/95 : San Marco Impex Italiana Sri ( represented
                                                                        by Lucette Defalque ) — appeal for the annulment of the


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-160/01 and T-264/01

text:
C 19/44                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25.1.2003
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-160/01 and                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                           T-264/01 ( 1)                                   T-331/01: Huntstown Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation
                                                                           Services Limited v Commission of the European Communities.
                         (2003/C 19/81)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                    (Language of the case: French)
By order of 5 November 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
Cases T-160/01 and T-264/01: Léon Rappe v Commission of                            Removal from the register of Case T-172/02 (1)
the European Communities.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/84)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001 and C 369 of 22.12.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Fourth
        Removal from the register of Case T-294/01 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2003/C 19/82)                                    T-172/02: Laurent Druet v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
By order of 24 October 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-294/01: Lucía Aparicio Chofré v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-199/02 (1)
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/85)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-331/01 (1)
                                                                           By order of 22 October 2002 the President of the Fourth
                         (2003/C 19/83)                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the case: English)                         T-199/02: Michel van Beek v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-77/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-77/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 326/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.03.2006.


title: Case C-169/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 10 April 2012 — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) Sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 10 April 2012 — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) Sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-169/12)
   2012/C 209/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) Sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Article 66(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended) (‘Directive 2006/112’) to be interpreted as meaning that where a taxable person issues an invoice documenting the supply of a service covered by the power conferred on Member States by that article (derogation from Articles 63, 64 and 65 of Directive 2006/112), it is possible to determine the chargeability of the tax (liability to pay the tax) on the basis of Article 66(b) of Directive 2006/112 as arising on the date of payment, but no later than 30 days from the date on which the service is supplied?

               2.

               Are the provisions of Article 66(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding the Polish national provisions in Article 19(13)(2)(a) and (b) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dziennik Ustaw No 54, item 535, as amended) under which the time when the liability to pay the tax arises (the event on whose occurrence the tax becomes chargeable in respect of certain transactions) occurs in respect of transport and shipping services on receipt of payment in full or in part, but no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even where an invoice laying down a later deadline for payment is issued and presented to the purchaser no later than seven days after the service is supplied and the purchaser of the service has the right to deduct input tax during the period in which he received the invoice, irrespective of whether or not he has paid for the service?


title: Case C-19/10: Action brought on 12 January 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/15

         Action brought on 12 January 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-19/10)
   2010/C 80/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and S. Mortoni, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the national measures for the implementation of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors, by failing to inform the Commission of those measures as required under Article 16 of that regulation, and by failing to adopt the national measures for the implementation of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 (2) of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those regulations.

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Regulation No 273/2004 entered into force on 18 August 2005; Regulation No 111/2005 entered into force on 15 February 2005 and has applied since 18 August 2005. Having received no notification of the provisions that Italy was required to adopt under Article 12 of Regulation No 273/2004 and under Article 31 of Regulation No 111/2005 and, in any event, having received no information from the Italian Republic which might indicate that the necessary measures have in fact been adopted, the Commission submits that the Italian Republic has failed to adopt such measures and that it has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 273/2004 and Regulation No 111/2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1.


title: Case T-34/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — Bayer CropScience and Others v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance endosulfan — Reexamination of authorisation for placing products on the market — Action for failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — Bayer CropScience and Others v Commission
   (Case T-34/05) (1)

   (Plant protection products - Active substance endosulfan - Reexamination of authorisation for placing products on the market - Action for failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 281/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Bayer CropScience AG (Monheim, Germany), Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Alfa Georgika Efodia AEVE (Athens, Greece) and Aragonesas Agro, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the applicants: European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to review the data submitted by the applicants in the course of the procedure for review of the authorisation to place the active substance endosulfan on the market, laid down by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present application.

               2.

               The Commission and the applicants shall bear their own costs.

               3.

               With regard to costs incurred in connection with the application for interim measures, the Commission and the applicants shall to bear their own costs.

               4.

               The Kingdom of Spain and the European Crop Protection Association shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-345/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 — V v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Waiver of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Application for other interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/36

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 — V v Parliament
   (Case T-345/05 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Waiver of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Application for other interim measures - Admissibility - Urgency)
   (2007/C 96/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: V. (Binsted, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Lofthouse, Barrister, M. Monan, C. Hayes, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION, firstly, for suspension of the operation of the Resolution of the European Parliament [confidential information omitted] to waive the applicant's immunity from suit, secondly, for interim measures to prevent criminal proceedings being resumed pending final judgment of the Court of First Instance in the main action, thirdly, for an order that the applicant's anonymity be protected and that there be no publicity in respect of the present application pending the ruling of the Court of First Instance on the main application and the conclusion of any trial before the national court, fourthly, for a direction that the applicant be granted permission to disclose the parties' written pleadings in the interlocutory proceedings and in the main action to the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom and to the national court hearing the domestic case and, fifthly, for an order that the hearing of the main application be expedited so as to take place as soon as possible.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case C-479/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): CBA Computer Handels- und Beteiligungs GmbH, formerly VOBIS Microcomputer AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff classification of computer "sound cards" — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1153/97 and 2086/97)

text:
C 200/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
1.    Dismisses the appeals;                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
2.    Orders D and the Kingdom of Sweden jointly and severally to           Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
      pay the costs;                                                        composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
                                                                            (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans,
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the                  Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
      Netherlands to bear their own costs.                                  Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            31 May 2001, in which it:
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                   1.    Declares that, by providing that:
                                                                                —    private security work (including surveillante or care-
                                                                                taking of movable property and buildings) may be
                                                                                carried out in Italy, subject to licence, only by private
                                                                                security firms holding Italian nationality;
                                                                                —    only Italian nationals possessing such a licence may
                                                                                be employed as sworn private security guards, the
                                                                                Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC);
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                           of 31 May 2001
in Case C-283/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free                                               (Fifth Chamber)
movement of workers — Freedom of establishment —
Freedom to provide services — Private security activities —                                            of 7 June 2001
Private security firms and private sworn security guards —
                       Nationality conditions)
                                                                            in Case C-479/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): CBA Computer Handels-
                           (2001/C 200/38)                                  und Beteiligungs GmbH, formerly VOBIS Microcomputer
                                                                                AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen (1)
                                                                            (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        classification of computer ‘sound cards’ — Classification in
                                                                            the Combined Nomenclature — Validity of Regulations (EC)
                                                                                Nos 1153/97 and 2086/97)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (2001/C 200/39)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-283/99: Commission of the European Communities                                       (Language of the case: German)
(Agents: initially by A. Aresu and M. Patakia and subsequently
by E. Traversa and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agents:
U. Leanza assisted initially by P.G. Ferri and subsequently by              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
F. Quadri) — application for a declaration that, by providing                                  in the European Court Reports)
that:
                                                                            In Case C-479/99: reference to the Court under Article
—     private security work (including surveillance or caretaking           234 EC from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a
      of movable property and buildings) may be carried out in              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      Italy, subject to licence, only by ‘private security firms’           court between CBA Computer Handels- und Beteiligungs
      holding Italian nationality;                                          GmbH, formerly VOBIS Microcomputer AG and Hauptzollamt
                                                                            Aachen — on the interpretation of headings 8471, 8473 and
—     only Italian nationals possessing such a licence may be               8543 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Cus-
      employed as ‘sworn private security guards’,                          toms Tariff, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/23
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical                 Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987                   of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                   Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
No 1153/97 of 24 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 168, p. 35), and                   ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
the validity of Regulation No 1153/97 and Commission                     composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997 amending                   is, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87 (OJ 1997 L 312,                 Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,           Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                    29 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocat General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it              Upon a proper construction of Article 11A(3)(b) and C(1) of the
has ruled:                                                               Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                         harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                         taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
Electronic circuit boards which enable automatic data-processing         assessment, the taxable amount in respect of goods supplied by mail
equipment and units thereof to process audio signals (sound              order from a catalogue to a customer for the customer’s own use
cards) are to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined           where the supplier allows the customer a discount from the catalogue
Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                   price, a separate account being credited in the customer’s favour with
No 1153/97 of 24 June 1997 amending Annex I to Council                   the amount of that discount as and when instalment payments are
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-      paid to the supplier — a discount which may then be immediately
ture and on the Common Customs Tariff.                                   withdrawn or used in another way by the customer — is the full
                                                                         catalogue price of the goods sold to the customer, reduced accordingly
                                                                         by the amount of that discount at the time when it is withdrawn or
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                 used in another way by the customer.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 29 May 2001
                                                                                of 29 May 2001
in Case C-86/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Freemans plc v                     in Case C-263/99: Commission of the European Communi-
          Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)                                              ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable amount — Discount                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
accounted for at the time of the supply — Price reduction                Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                   after the supply takes place)                                          Activity of transport consultant)
                         (2001/C 200/40)                                                            (2001/C 200/41)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-86/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the VAT and Duties                                   in the European Court Reports)
Tribunal, London (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Free-
mans plc and Commissioners of Customs and Excise — on the                In Case C-263/99: Commission of the European Communities
interpretation of Article 11A(3)b and C(1) of the Sixth Council          (Agents: initially A. Aresu and M. Patakia, and, subsequently,


title: Case T-253/06 P: Appeal brought on 8 September 2006 by Chassagne against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 June 2006 in Case F-11/05, Chassagne v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/38

         Appeal brought on 8 September 2006 by Chassagne against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 June 2006 in Case F-11/05, Chassagne v Commission
   (Case T-253/06 P)
   (2006/C 281/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul the order made by the Civil Service Tribunal on 29 June 2006 in Case F-11/05;

               —

               allow the claims for annulment and compensation submitted by the applicant at first instance

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the first plea in his appeal, the applicant submits that the Tribunal committed a breach of procedure adversely affecting his right to a fair hearing in that he was not able to submit his observations regarding the documents on which the Tribunal based its arguments and that certain matters raised by the applicant and documents lodged during the procedure were not taken into consideration. By his second plea, the applicant claims that the Tribunal infringed Community law by distorting the pleas relied on in the action and by incorrectly interpreting the provisions of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities. He also submits that the Tribunal made manifest errors of assessment of the facts.