title: Case T-330/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco and Others v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/38

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco and Others v Commission
   (Case T-330/08)
   (2008/C 272/78)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco e C. Snc (Trapani, Italy), Macaluso Gaetano (Palermo, Italy), Gallo (Salerno, Italy), Severino Pesca (Salerno, Italy), Gallo Pesca (Salerno, Italy), Fulvia di Pappalardo Luigi Matteo (Cetara, Italy), Federazione Nazionale delle Imprese di Pesca (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Clarizia and P. Ziotti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Allow the claims set out in the introduction to the application and, consequently, annul the Regulation which has imposed a ban, as from 16 June 2008, on fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea by purse seiners flying the Italian flag (Article 1 of the Regulation) and has prohibited Community operators, as from 16 June 2008, from accepting landings, placing in cages for fattening or farming, or transhipments in Community waters or ports of bluefin tuna caught in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and the Mediterranean Sea by such vessels (Article 3(1) of the Regulation).

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, including the applicants' legal assistance costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Cast T-305/08 Italian Republic v Commission and Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c. v Commission. In particular, it is submitted that the legal basis of the contested regulation is incorrect, in so far as Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59) is not appropriate for the purpose of adopting the measures in the contested regulation, for which recourse should have been had to Article 26(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2371/2002.


title: Case C-374/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany lodged on 7 July 2016 — RGEX GmbH, in liquidation, represented by Rochus Geissel, liquidator v Finanzamt Neuss

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany lodged on 7 July 2016 — RGEX GmbH, in liquidation, represented by Rochus Geissel, liquidator v Finanzamt Neuss
   (Case C-374/16)
   (2016/C 392/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RGEX GmbH, in liquidation, represented by Rochus Geissel, liquidator

      Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does an invoice required by Article 168(a) in conjunction with Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in order to exercise a right of deduction contain a ‘full address’ within the meaning of Article 226(5) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if, in the invoice he issues in relation to the supply, the taxable person making the supply gives an address by which he may be reached by post but where he does not carry out any economic activity?

               2.

               Having regard to the principle of effectiveness, does Article 168(a) in conjunction with Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a national practice which takes into account good faith on the part of the recipient of a supply in the satisfaction of the requirements for the right to deduct input tax only outside the tax assessment procedure, within the framework of a special equitable procedure? In that regard may Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be relied upon?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-550/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/17

         Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-550/13)
   2013/C 377/40
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, X. Basakou and A. Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s final and definitive decision of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 5225 and published at OJ 2013 L 219), as regards the part relating to the Hellenic Republic;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following grounds for annulment:

               By the first ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic contends that the imposition of corrections in 2013 after more than four years’ inaction on the part of the Commission regarding deficiencies in the control system, which relate to the financial years 2006 and 2007 and had already been identified in 2008, infringes the general principle of legal certainty and the general principles requiring action to be taken within a reasonable time and the Commission to act timeously, on account of the unjustifiable and excessive length of the procedure which is prejudicial to the Hellenic Republic in the present financial situation, and it constitutes an absolute financial surprise.

               By the second ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic submits that the Commission, erring as to the facts and stating totally inadequate reasons, reached the conclusion that two key controls were not carried out and proposed a correction amounting to a flat rate of 10 %, and that the rate could not in any event exceed the rate of 5 % which is imposed in cases where deficiencies in key controls are found.

               By the third ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the POSEI — Small Aegean Islands sector, the Hellenic Republic submits that the Commission decision lacks a specific statement of reasons so as to justify the correction imposed.


title: Case T-419/17: Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL#3)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/55

         Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL#3)
   (Case T-419/17)
   (2017/C 277/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mendes SA (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Carpineti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Actial Farmaceutica Srl (Rome, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘VSL#3’ — European Union trade mark No 1 437 789

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 in Case R 1306/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in accordance with and for the purposes of Article 51(1)(b) EUTMR;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in accordance with and for the purposes of Article 51(1)(c) EUTMR;

               —

               in any event, order that the applicant should be reimbursed in full for the costs of the proceedings, or at least that each party should bear its own costs in full.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht te Groningen by judgments of that court of 20 May 1998 in the case of Hendrik Van der Woude against Stichting Beatrixoord (Case C-222/98)

text:
C 258/28                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
te Groningen by judgments of that court of 20 May 1998                 Travail de LieÁge (7th Chamber) by judgment of that court
in the case of Hendrik Van der Woude against Stichting                 of 17 June 1998 in the case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop
                             Beatrixoord                                           against the Office National de l'Emploi
                          (Case C-222/98)                                                      (Case C-224/98)
                            (98/C 258/45)                                                       (98/C 258/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Kantongerecht
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
te Groningen (Cantonal Court, Groningen) of 20 May
                                                                       Travail de LieÁge (7eÁme chambre) (LieÁge Labour Court Ð
1998, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 1998, for
                                                                       7th Chamber) of 17 June 1998, received at the Court
a preliminary ruling in the case of Hendrik Van der
                                                                       Registry on 22 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
Woude against Stichting Beatrixoord on the following
                                                                       case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop against the Office
question:
                                                                       National de l'Emploi on the following question:
Are Article II(G) of the CAO (1) (which prohibits any
departure from the terms of that collective labour                     Given that the Court of Justice has already interpreted
agreement (2)) and Article 32 thereof (which lays down the             Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation
medical expenses insurance rules (3)), read in conjunction             No 1612/68 (1) to mean that Article 36 of the Royal
with each other, contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC              Decree of 25 November 1991 cannot prevent a dependent
Treaty?                                                                child of a Community migrant worker who has completed
                                                                       his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
(1) Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst voor het ziekenhuiswezen           State other than Belgium from being eligible to receive the
    (Collective Labour Agreement relating to medical treatment).       tideover allowance, are those provisions to be interpreted
(2) may not . . . agree with the employee any conditions of           as meaning that Article 36 of the aforesaid royal decree
    employment which are not regulated by this CAO'.                   also cannot prevent a Belgian student who has completed
(3) Employees (and former employees) may be members of the             his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
    IZZ collective medical expenses insurance scheme. In               State other than Belgium and is seeking his first
    accordance with that article, Beatrixoord pays 50 % of the
                                                                       employment from being eligible to receive the tideover
    premium due from Mr Van der Woude in respect of the
    collective (individual) IZZ Medical Expenses Scheme.               allowance?
                                                                       (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
                                                                           relating to the free movement of workers within the
                                                                           Community (OJ L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Kammarrätten,
Stockholm by order of 16 June 1998 in the case of
           Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG
                          (Case C-223/98)
                                                                       Action brought on 22 June 1998 by the Commission of
                            (98/C 258/46)
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-225/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 16 June 1998 from                                              (98/C 258/48)
Kammarrätten, Stockholm (Administrative Court of
Appeal, Stockholm), which was received at the Court
Registry on 18 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the              An action against the French Republic was brought before
case of Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG on the                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
following question:                                                    22 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Michael Nolin, of its Legal
                                                                       Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Does Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 (1) constitute a
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
bar to application of rules of national law under which
                                                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the names of declarers or consignees of imported goods,
which the trade-mark owner has found to be counterfeit,
may not be disclosed to the trade-mark owner?                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994
    laying down measures to prohibit the release from free             Declare that, in the course of the various procedures for
    circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive           the award of public service contracts for the construction
    procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 341 of            and maintenance of school buildings conducted by the
    30.12.1994, p. 8).                                                 Nord-Pas de Calais Region and the DeÂpartement du Nord
                                                                       over a period of three years, the French Republic has
                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC


               13.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/26

         Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 31 August 2016 in the case of Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring
   (Case E-11/16)
   (2017/C 120/14)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 31 August 2016 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 7 September 2016, for an advisory opinion in the case of Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring on the following questions:
   Question 1, concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1)(a) of the Coordination Regulation:
   When an institution in the injured party’s home country that is responsible for providing benefits, under that country’s legislation ‘is subrogated to’ the injured party’s right against a ‘third party’, other EEA States must recognise the institution’s subrogation to the claim. Does this mean:

               —

               that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution and that the existence and scope of the claim depends on the home country’s legislation,

               —

               that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution and that the existence and scope of the claim depends on the legislation in the country where the injury occurred, or

               —

               that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution, but that the Coordination Regulation has no bearing on the choice of law as regards the existence and scope of the claim?

         Question 2, concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1)(b) of the Coordination Regulation:
   Where the institution responsible for providing benefits has a direct right against the third party, other EEA States shall recognise such rights. Does this mean:

               —

               that other EEA States must recognise the right in full, including that its existence and scope depends on the home country’s legislation, or

               —

               that other EEA States must recognise the right, subject to those limitations that follow from the rules of law in the country where the injury occurred?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep, Ghent, by judgment of 15 January 1998, in the case of the Openbaar Ministerie v. Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, NV Smeg and NV Adia Interim (Case C-22/98)

text:
28.3.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that body of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                     21 January 1998 in the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against
                                                                                Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-Umgebung
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                                          (Case C-20/98)
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
addressed to them into their domestic law before the                                            (98/C 94/21)
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period
expired on 1 July 1995 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( ) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993, p. 27.
 1                                                                      European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Ver-
                                                                        waltungssenat     (Independent     Administrative     Board)
                                                                        Salzburg of 21 January 1998, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against Bezirkshauptmann-
                                                                        schaft (District Administrative Authority) Salzburg-Umge-
                                                                        bung on the following question:
Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-19/98)
                                                                        Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
                          (98/C 94/20)                                  freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
                                                                        of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
                                                                        preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                      of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European                    abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson and Eric                slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,               regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre.                            distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                        calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
     or    communicate,         the    laws,    regulations    or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December
     1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to insurance against civil liability in            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
     respect of the use of motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom              Ghent, by judgment of 15 January 1998, in the case of the
     of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under                Openbaar Ministerie v. Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire,
     Article 1(4)(2) thereof and the EC Treaty,                                        NV Smeg and NV Adia Interim
                                                                                (Case C-22/98)
Ð declare that, by not answering the letters of
     22 February and 10 October 1994 or the letter of                                           (98/C 94/22)
     formal notice of 14 February 1996, the Kingdom of
     Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 European Communities by judgment of 15 January 1998
                                                                        of the Hof van Beroep (Court of Appeal), Ghent, which
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1998,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Openbaar
                                                                        Ministerie (Public Prosecutor's Department) v. Jean
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                    Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, NV Smeg and NV Adia
those relied on in Case C-18/98 (2); the time limit for                 Interim, on the following questions:
transposition expired on 31 December 1987.
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.                                           1. As Community law now stands, can those subject to
(2) See page 10 of this Official Journal.                                   it, be they natural or legal persons, acquire rights
                                                                            under Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
                                                                            with Articles 7, 85 and 86 thereof, which Member
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
    States must respect, in the case where the loading and          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
    unloading in port areas of, in particular, goods                Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela by order of that
    imported by sea from one Member State into the                  court of 13 January 1998 in the case of Dorinda Teresa
    territory of another Member State and port work in              López Tourís against Instituto Nacional de Empleo and
    general are reserved exclusively to registered dockers',                 Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
    the conditions and detailed rules for the recognition of
    whom are determined by the King on the advice of the                                   (Case C-25/98)
    Joint Committee having responsibility for the port
    area in question, whereby binding rates are applied,                                    (98/C 94/24)
    even though the work can be carried out by ordinary
    (that is to say, non-registered) dock workers?
2. Are registered dockers, as referred to in Article 1 of
    the Law of 8 June 1972 and having the exclusive right           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    to carry out dock work within port areas, as defined            European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo
    in greater detail in the relevant legislative provisions,       Social (Social Court) No 1, Santiago de Compostela of
    to be regarded as entrusted with the operation of               13 January 1998, which was received at the Court
    services of general economic interest within the                Registry on 29 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    meaning of Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty, and would            the case of Dorinda Teresa López Tourís against Instituto
    they no longer be able to carry out their special duties        Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la
    if Article 90(1) and the prohibitory provisions of              Seguridad Social on the following questions:
    Articles 7, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty were to be
    applied to them?
                                                                    1. Must Article 67(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                        (in its present version) be interpreted, as regards the
                                                                        particular facts to which it is to be applied, as
                                                                        meaning that periods of insurance or of employment
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad,                  completed under the legislation of any other Member
Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 12 November                   State must be taken into account for the purposes of
1997 in the case of Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn v. J.               obtaining the unemployment allowance for persons
Heerma and the company, J. Heerma and K. Heerma-                        over 52 years of age, provided for by Article 215(3) of
                           Graanstra                                    Real Decreto Legislativo (Royal Legislative Decree) 1/
                        (Case C-23/98)                                  1994 of 20 June 1994, which approves the
                                                                        consolidated version of the Ley General de la
                         (98/C 94/23)                                   Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security), to
                                                                        the extent to which the right to a retirement pension
                                                                        may be obtained on the basis of such contributions,
                                                                        subject to age requirements, in a Member State other
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  than that of the competent institution?
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
(Supreme Court), Netherlands, of 12 November 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 January
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn v. J. Heerma and the
company, J. Heerma and K. Heerma-Graanstra on the                   2. Can that be the case even though the worker has not
following question:                                                     paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions
                                                                        for less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a
                                                                        retirement pension in any Member State?
Must Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as
meaning that, where a person pursues as his sole economic
activity the letting of an incorporeal asset to the company
of which he is a member, that letting, albeit an economic
activity, must be regarded as not being made
independently, on the ground that the partner must be               3. Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive
deemed to constitute a taxable person together with the                 the unemployment allowance available for persons of
partnership within the meaning of Article 4(1) aforesaid?               more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that,
                                                                        subject to age requirements, they are entitled to a
                                                                        retirement pension payable by the Spanish social
                                                                        security scheme (persons having such an entitlement in
                                                                        any other Member State being precluded from


title: Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Deductions — Exemptions — Supplies of dental prostheses)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13)
   (Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Deductions - Exemptions - Supplies of dental prostheses))
   (2015/C 138/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: VDP Dental Laboratory NV (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-154/13, C-160/13)

      Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the exemption from value added tax provided for by national law is incompatible with Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, Article 168 does not permit a taxable person both to benefit from that exemption and to exercise the right to deduct tax.

               2)

               Article 140(a) and (b) and Article 143(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax for which they provide applies to the intra-Community acquisition and the final importation of dental prostheses supplied by dentists and dental technicians where the Member State of the supply or importation has not implemented the transitional rules provided for in Article 370 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75.

               3)

               Article 140(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in that provision also applies where the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses originates from a Member State which has implemented the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 370 of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case C-248/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Latvian Republic) lodged on 7 July 2009 — SIA Pakora Pluss v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Latvian Republic) lodged on 7 July 2009 — SIA Pakora Pluss v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-248/09)
   2009/C 220/43
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA Pakora Pluss

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can export formalities be regarded as completed for the purpose of [Annex IV, Chapter 5,] paragraph 1 of the Act of Accession, if a cargo manifest has been filled in but the actions required by Article 448 of Regulation No 2454/93 (1) have not been performed (the German customs authorities had not given the Latvian customs authorities proper notification of the shipping company’s request)?

               2.

               If they cannot, then in circumstances such as those in question can the rules governing the customs procedure (Regulations Nos 2913/92 (2) and 2454/93) be regarded as quite inapplicable?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is affirmative, must Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1, of the Act of Accession to the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, when goods moving in the enlarged Community after being the subject of export formalities are not put into free circulation, they are not free of customs duties or other customs measures, even though it is beyond doubt that those goods have the status of Community goods? In other words, is it in the circumstances of the case decisive that the customs procedure of release for free circulation has been completed?

               4.

               Is value added tax to be included in the definition of import duties laid down in Article 4(10) of Regulation No 2913/92?

               5.

               If it is, is the obligation to pay value added tax, which is charged as a customs duty on the import of goods, imposed on the principal or on the final consumer of the goods? Are there any circumstances that might permit that obligation to be shared?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


C 144/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-425/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-369/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/53)                                                   (2002/C 144/56)
By order of 11 December 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
from the register of Case C-425/99 (Referral for a preliminary      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
ruling by the Bundessozialgericht): Akhtar Seyed Abbasy v           register of Case C-369/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank                     Council of the European Union.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-387/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-29/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/54)                                                   (2002/C 144/57)
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-29/00: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-387/00: European Parliament v
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-321/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-393/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/55)                                                   (2002/C 144/58)
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-321/00: Federal Republic of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                   from the register of Case C-393/00: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-440/07 P: Order of the Court of 9 June 2010 — European Commission v Schneider Electric SA, Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic (Appeal — Partial annulment of the judgment under appeal — Where the state of the proceedings so permits — Non contractual liability of the Community — Evaluation of the loss)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/13

      Order of the Court of 9 June 2010 — European Commission v Schneider Electric SA, Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic
      (Case C-440/07 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Partial annulment of the judgment under appeal - Where the state of the proceedings so permits - Non contractual liability of the Community - Evaluation of the loss)
      (2010/C 288/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: M. Petite, F. Arbault, T. Christoforou, R. Lyal and C-F Durand, Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Schneider Electric SA (represented by: M. Pittie and A. Winckler, lawyers), Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission, by which the Court ordered the European Commission to make good, first, the expenses incurred by Schneider Electric SA in respect of its participation in the resumed merger control procedure which followed delivery of the judgments of the Court of First Instance on 22 October 2002 in Cases T-310/01 and T-77/02 Schneider Electric v Commission and, second, two thirds of the loss sustained by Schneider Electric as a result of the reduction in the transfer price of Legrand SA which Schneider Electric had to concede to the transferee in exchange for the postponement of the effective date of sale of Legrand until 10 December 2002 — Conditions governing the establishment of non contractual liability on the part of the Community — Concepts of wrongful act, damage and direct causal link between the wrongful act and the damage suffered — ‘Sufficiently serious’ breach of Community law vitiating the procedure for examination of the compatibility of a concentration with the common market

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The amount of the loss to be made good in point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 16 July 2009 in Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I-6413 is fixed at EUR 50 000.

                  2.

                  Schneider Electric SA’s claim relating to the costs is dismissed.

         (1)  OJ C 22 of 26.01.2008.


title: Case T-335/08: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — BNP Paribas and BNL v European Commission (State aid — Measures taken by the Italian authorities concerning certain restructured banks — Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes — Decision classifying the aid scheme as incompatible with the common market and ordering recovery of the aid — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Selective nature — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — BNP Paribas and BNL v European Commission
   (Case T-335/08) (1)

   (State aid - Measures taken by the Italian authorities concerning certain restructured banks - Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes - Decision classifying the aid scheme as incompatible with the common market and ordering recovery of the aid - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Selective nature - Obligation to state reasons)
   2010/C 221/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/711/EC of 11 March 2008 on State aid C 15/07 (ex NN 20/07) implemented by Italy on the tax incentives in favour of certain restructured banks (OJ 2008 L 237, p. 70)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case F-6/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Fares v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual agents — Classification in grade — Account taken of professional experience)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/59

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Fares v Commission
   (Case F-6/09) (1)

   (Civil Service - Contractual agents - Classification in grade - Account taken of professional experience)
   2011/C 30/112
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Soukaïna Fares (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the classification of the applicant at grade 8 of function group III.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission by which Ms Fares was classified at grade 8 of function group III for contractual agents, in so far as that decision follows from Ms Fares’ contract of employment as a member of the contract staff of 28 March 2008;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009, p. 54.


title: Case T-267/10: Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Land Wien v Commission

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/42

         Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Land Wien v Commission
   (Case T-267/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/76
   Language of the case: Geman

      Parties

      Applicant: Land Wien (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the decision of 25 March 2010 to be void;

               —

               hold that the European Commission has breached Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) as not all of the requested documents relating to the extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant were forwarded to the complainant party, with the result that the Commission failed to act within the terms of Article 265 TFEU and […] is in breach of [Article 2](3) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs relating to the proceedings incurred by the applicant, Land Wien.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant is challenging the Commission decision of 25 March 2010, by which the complaint procedure in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the completion of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia was discontinued. The applicant further complains that it did not receive from the Commission all of the requested documents concerning the extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant and that there was therefore a failure to act, within the terms of Article 265 TFEU, on the part of the Commission.
   As grounds for its action, the applicant submits that, by its decision of 25 March 2010, the Commission has failed to have regard for Directive 2003/35/EC (2) and for the fundamental right under Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   In conjunction with its application for the provision of information, the applicant contends that the improper treatment accorded to it breaches Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 7 of Regulation No 1049/2001, it submits, has also been breached.
   The applicant further takes the view that, by failing to act in respect of the complaint and the request for information, the Commission has also failed to comply with the obligations to act which are laid down in the EAEC Treaty and discussed in detail in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 October 2009 in Case C-115/08 ČEZ (not yet published in the ECR).

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending, with regard to public participation and access to justice, Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).


title: Joined Cases C-215/13 P and C-216/13 P: Order of the President of the Court of 31 March 2014  — Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 31 March 2014 — Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe
   (Joined Cases C-215/13 P and C-216/13 P) (1)

   2014/C 253/31
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-158/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/30

         Action brought on 24 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-158/12)
   2013/C 86/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the request for employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in function group III which was made by the Office for Infrastructures and Logistics in Luxembourg and damages for the material damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Head of Unit of the ‘Recruitment and end of service’ unit (DG HR.B.2) of the European Commission of 6 March 2012 rejecting the application for employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in function group III which had been made by the Office for Infrastructures and Logistics in Luxembourg;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate for the material damage caused to the applicant by the contested decision; to evaluate the amount corresponding to the difference between the payments corresponding to function group III since the month of October 2011 and those payments which he continued to receive as a member of the contractual staff of function group I, plus corresponding interest from the due date of each months’ pay until the date of their actual payment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-601/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Othman v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/20

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Othman v Council
   (Case T-601/14)
   2014/C 361/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case T-327/04: Action brought on 3 August 2004 by Syndicat National de l'Industrie des Viandes (SNIV) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/32

         Action brought on 3 August 2004 by Syndicat National de l'Industrie des Viandes (SNIV) against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-327/04)
   (2004/C 273/63)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 August 2004 by Syndicat National de l'Industrie des Viandes (SNIV), established in Paris, represented by Nicole Coutrelis and Sévérine Henneresse, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 30 March 2004 concerning the State aid ‘N515/2003 — France — Aid in the rendering sector — Slaughter tax’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Regarded as a public service mission, rendering is financed in France by a fund financed by an endowment from the State and a slaughter tax levied on slaughterhouses. That scheme was notified to the Commission. The applicant, which represents slaughterhouses, drew the Commission's attention to the need to initiate the formal investigation procedure in respect of the aid, laid down in Article 88(2) EC. However, by the contested decision the Commission found that the scheme at issue was not incompatible with Community law in respect of ‘animals which have died on the farm’ and did not constitute aid in respect of ‘slaughterhouse waste’.
   Since it considers that the Commission thereby approved the system established by the French Government, the applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision on the ground of breach of Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999. (1) The applicant submits that, on account of the serious problems in the assessment of the compatibility of the aid at issue, which it had mentioned, the Commission was not entitled to declare the aid at issue compatible without initiating the formal investigation procedure.
   The applicant also relies on a number of errors of fact and of assessment in the contested decision. It also claims that the slaughter tax is manifestly contrary to a number of provisions of Community law, namely:

               —

               the VAT rules;

               —

               the prohibition on quantitative restrictions between Member States (Article 28 EC), to the extent that the slaughter tax also relates to animals of 'mixed' origin, in accordance with Regulation No 1760/2000, (2) that is slaughtered in France, but from another Member State;

               —

               Regulation No 1774/2002; (3)

               —

               freedom to provide services (Article 50 EC), to the extent that a single undertaking by département may provide rendering services to the slaughterhouses and farmers in the département;

               —

               the scheme of the Common Agricultural Policy. The applicant claims on that subject that by imposing the tax in question, France is undermining the common organisation of the market in meat and infringing the regulations relating to it, by artificially raising the price of meat.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97, OJ 2000 L 204, p. 1.

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2002 in Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — EC/OCT cumulation of origin — Safeguard measure — Application for annulment — Action for damages — Article 109 of the OCT Decision — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 31/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                    8.2.2003
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          Information                                   K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in
                        (2003/C 31/22)                                  which it:
                                                                        1.     Orders that Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00 be
At its meeting on 9 January 2003, the Court of First Instance                  joined for the purposes of the judgment;
decided as follows:
                                                                        2.     Dismisses the applications;
The decisions adopted on 4 July 2002 (OJ 2002 C 202, p. 19)
                                                                        3.     Orders each of the applicants to bear its own costs and pay
on the designation of the Presidents of Chamber and the
                                                                               those incurred by the Commission, including those incurred by
composition of the Chambers for the period between 1 Octo-
                                                                               it in the proceedings for interim relief, in the case it has brought;
ber 2002 and 30 September 2003 shall remain in force, after
the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, for the period for
                                                                        4.     Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
which they were adopted.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00 and C 259 of 9.9.00.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 14 November 2002
                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00: Rica
Foods (Free Zone) NV and Others v Commission of the                                             of 14 November 2002
                  European Communities ( 1)
                                                                        in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00: Rica Foods (Free
(Association arrangements for the overseas countries and                Zone) NV and Free Trade Foods NV v Commission of the
territories — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Imports of                                        European Communities ( 1)
sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — EC/OCT cumu-
lation of origin — Safeguard measure — Application for                  (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and
annulment — Action for damages — Article 109 of the                     territories — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Imports of
OCT Decision — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of                 sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — EC/OCT cumu-
                             powers)                                    lation of origin — Safeguard measure — Application for
                                                                        annulment — Action for damages — Article 109 of the
                        (2003/C 31/23)                                  OCT Decision — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of
                                                                                powers)
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/24)
In Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00: Rica Foods
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Free Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba), represented
by G. van der Wal, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, Free Trade Foods NV, established in Curaçao
(Netherlands Antilles), Suproco NV, established in Curaçao,             In Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00: Rica Foods (Free
represented by M. Slotboom and J. Coumans, avocats, with an             Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by
address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Kingdom of              G. van der Wal, lawyer, with an address for service in
the Netherlands (Agents: J. van Bakel and H. G. Sevenster),             Luxembourg, supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                  (Agents: J. van Bakel, H. Sevenster and H. van der Oosterkamp),
T. van Rijn), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz             and Free Trade Foods NV, established in Curaçao (Antilles
Abad) and, in Cases T-94/00 and T-110/00, by French                     néerlandaises), represented by M. Slotboom, N. Helder and
Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and L. Berheim) — application           J. Coumans, lawers, with an address for service in Luxembourg
first, for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/              against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
2000 of 29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures                 T. van Rijn), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz
for imports from the overseas countries and territories of sugar        Abad and López-Monís Gallego) — application first for
sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ 2000               annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of
L 56, p. 39), and secondly for damages — the Court of First             29 September 2000 providing for the continued application
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,             of safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries


title: Case C-502/13: Action brought on 18 September 2013 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/49

         Action brought on 18 September 2013 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-502/13)
   2013/C 344/86
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation, (2)

               —

               order Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 3 % from 1 January 2012, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.
   According to the Commission, the application of a reduced rate of VAT is incompatible with the wording of Articles 96 and 98 of the VAT directive, in so far as such a rate may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. In the absence of express mention of the supply of digital books in that annex, the latter may not enjoy a reduced rate of VAT. That is moreover confirmed by the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT, and by the adoption by the VAT Committee of guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.
   The Commission considers also that the reduced rate of 3 %, that is to say a rate which is below the minimum rate of 5 % fixed by Article 99 of the VAT directive, to the supply of digital books, may not be covered by the exception provided for by Article 110 of the VAT directive, or in accordance with Article 114 of that directive.

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

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2000 in Case T-84/98: C v Council of the European Union (Officials — Action for annulment — Invalidity Committee — Retirement — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Misuse of powers — Non-material damage)

text:
C 233/28                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        12.8.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 16 June 2000                                                             of 22 May 2000
                                                                            in Case T-96/99: Pieter F. Fleurbaay v European Invest-
  in Case T-84/98: C v Council of the European Union (1)                                                ment Bank (1)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Invalidity Committee                    (European Investment Bank (EIB) — Actions by members of
— Retirement — Breach of essential procedural require-                      staff — Measure capable of being contested — Manifest
     ments — Misuse of powers — Non-material damage)                                                   inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/52)
                          (2000/C 233/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-96/99: Pieter F. Fleurbaay, a former member of the
In Case T-84/98: C, former official of the Council of the                   staff of the European Investment Bank, residing at Waldbredi-
European Union, residing in Dublin (Ireland), represented by                mus (Luxembourg), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels
Séamus O Tuathail, Barrister of the Bar of Ireland, with an                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
address for service in Luxembourg c/o Michael O’Toole, Irish                Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v European
Embassy, 28 Route d’Arlon v Council of the European Union,                  Investment Bank (Agent: L. La Marca) — application for
represented by Colin Robertson and Thérèse Blanchet, Legal                  annulment of the decision taken by the European Investment
Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  Bank, in the form of a letter from its President dated
Luxembourg at the office of Alessandro Morbilli, General                    18 February 1999 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Counsel of the Legal Affairs Directorate in the European                    of: V. Tiili, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi,
Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer — applica-                   Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 May 2000, the
tion first, for annulment of Council Decision No 677/97 of                  operative part of which is as follows:
11 July 1997 retiring the applicant on grounds of total
permanent invalidity and for an order requiring the Council to              1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
pay compensation for the material and non-material damage
suffered — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vester-               2.    The parties are to bear their own costs;
dorf, President, M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                            3.    The Kingdom of the Netherlands is to bear its own costs.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 June 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls Council Decision No 677/97 of 11 July 1997 by                  (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      which it retired the applicant on its own initiative on grounds
      of total permanent invalidity;
2.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant the difference between
      the salary which she received before her retirement and that
      granted to her on the basis of the contested decision, and any
      other amount which the applicant received before her retirement,            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      together with interest at an annual rate of 5,5 %;
                                                                                of 22 May 2000
3.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant the sum of
      BEF 2 000 000 as compensation for the non-material damage             in Case T-103/99: Associazione delle Cantine Sociali
      caused to her, together with interest at an annual rate of 5,5 %      Venete v European Ombudsman and European Parli-
      until the date of payment;                                                                           ament (1)
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                (Actions for failure to act — Ombudsman — Inadmissibili-
                                                                                ty)
5.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                                            (2000/C 233/53)
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-103/99: Associazione delle Cantine Sociali Venete,
                                                                            established in Padua (Italy), represented by I. Cacciavillani, of
                                                                            the Venice Bar, and A. Cimino, of the Padua Bar, with an


title: Action brought on 29 July 1997 by John Mellet against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-221/97)

text:
C 331 /20            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1 . 11 . 97
As regards the fundamental rights violated in this case,             He explains that a previous decision of the Administrative
reference is made to Article F of the Treaty on European             Committee of the Court of Justice of 14 June 1995 not to
Union as well as to the case-law of the European Court of            initiate the procedure leading to his establishment as a
Human Rights establishing that milk quota is a property              permanent official is the subject matter of proceedings
right entitled to due process protection in accordance with          pending before the Court of First Instance ( ! ). In the
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.                course of those proceedings, the defendant institution
In addition, this Court has expressly ruled that it is               contested the admissibility of the action on the ground
incompatible with respect for fundamental rights for a               that the contested decision was not an individuial decision
political institution to refuse to execute a judgment or             which adversely affected the applicant. Accordingly the
arbitral award given against it. Therefore, the                      applicant caused two further steps to be taken in order to
Commission's refusal to ensure that effect is properly               ensure that the substance of his case would be ruled upon:
given to the ruling of the Court of Justice in the                   ( 1 ) on 9 September 1996 he made a request of the
applicant's favour is as much a breach of fundamental                President of the Court (the appointing authority in the
rights as actions of Governments in comparable cases                 matter) under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations to be
which the European Court of Human rights, vindicating                appointed as an established official; (2 ) by memorandum
fundamental rights and the rule of law, had robustly                 of 1 October 1996 the member to whom the applicant is
condemned .                                                          attached made a request of the President under the
                                                                     decision of the Administrative Meeting of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of 30 June 1976 which states, inter alia, that the
                                                                     appointment procedure may be initiated after three years'
                                                                     service on a proposal from the Member concerned .
Action brought on 29 July 1997 by John Mellet against
                                                                     By memorandum of 17 October 1996 the President
     the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     decided to refuse the request of 1 October 1996 and not
                       ( Case T-221/97)                              to organize an internal competition to appoint a driver as
                         ( 97/C 331 /42 )
                                                                     a permanent official. The applicant maintains that this
                                                                     decision :
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     — was adopted in breach of the essential procedural
                                                                           requirements contained in Article 25 of the Staff
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                     Regulations,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1997
by John Mellett, represented by Anthony M. Collins and
Brendan O'Donovan, with an address for service in                    — infringes general rules of law relating to the
Luxembourg at the applicant's home, 127 route de                           application of the Treaty establishing the European
Diekirch, Walferdange .                                                    Community, namely the- principles of equal treatment
                                                                           and of the protection of legitimate expectations, and
                                                                           the prohibition on the retroactive withdrawal of a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                legal measure that confers individual rights, and
— annul the decision of the President of the Court of
    Justice of the European Communities of 17 October                — was adopted without taking proper account of his
    1996 refusing to open a competition to appoint a                       rights and legitimate interests.
    driver as a permanent official, and/or
— annul the decision of the President of the Court of
                                                                     By memorandum of 4 December 1996 the President
                                                                     refused the applicant's request to be appointed as an
    Justice of the European Communities of 4 December                established official on the ground that the 1976 decision
    1996 refusing to appoint him as a permanent official,
    and
                                                                     had not been applicable since 1994. The applicant states:
— award him the costs of these proceedings.                          — that the failure to apply the 1976 decision to him was
                                                                           made in error, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — that the decision infringes general rules of law relating
The applicant, the personal driver of one of the Members                   to the application of the Treaty establishing the
of the Court of Justice, challenges the refusal to open a                  European Community, namely the principles of equal
competition to appoint a driver as a permanent official                    treatment and of the protection of legitimate
and the refusal to appoint him as a permanent official.                    expectations, and the prohibition on the retroactive
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 97             I EN I                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /21
     withdrawal of a            legal  measure     which     confers      Moreover, having made a report on the applicant's ability,
      individual rights .                                                 efficiency and conduct at the request of the members of
                                                                          the Joint Committee on Promotion, the applicant's
(') Case T-66/96 , Mellet v. Court of Justice ( OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 .       superior failed to put it in writing and submit it to him, to
     1996, p. 10 ).                                                       enable him to make observation and place it in his
                                                                          personal file .
                                                                          The applicant, who has suffered a state of anxiety and
                                                                          uncertainty for more than two years, has been deprived of
                                                                          an opportunity of having his candidature taken into
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by Christian Marion                       consideration, at the conclusion of a regular procedure,
          against the Economic and Social Committee                       for promotion to Grade C 4 . The assessor was obliged to
                          ( Case T-227/97)                                give reasons for his assessments, in order to allow the
                                                                          applicant to make observations and put forward pleas in
                            ( 97IC 331/43 )                               his defence .
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Finally, the applicant makes a damages claim for
                                                                          combined material and non-material damage .
An action against the Economic and Social Committee
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 1997 by Christian
Marion, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and Fran^oise
Parmentier, all of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson,
                                                                          Action brought on 18 August 1997 by 'E' against the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                                                      European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-239/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /44
— annul        the    decision     definitively   establishing   the
      applicant's staff report for the period 1992—1994,                                  (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the applicant FB 250 000
      compensation for combined material and non-material                 An action against the European Parliament was brought
      damage,                                                              before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 18 August 1997 by 'E', represented by
                                                                           Claudine Junion, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges
                                                                           Liolos, 6 Rue J. A. Muller.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
 The applicant, an official in Grade C 5 , alleges
 infringement of Articles 26 , 43 and 45 of the Staff
 Regulations, of Articles 6 and 7 of Decision 1001 /81 A of                — annul the decision of the European Parliament of
 the Economic and Social Committee laying down general                         5 November 1996, appointing the applicant to Grade
 provisions for implementing the Staff regulations as                          B 5 , Step 4,
 regards the periodic staff reports of officials, of the
 principle of sound administration, the duty to state
 reasons and the rights of the defence, and, finally, that                 — annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant's
 there has been a manifest error of assessment .                               complaint of 11 February 1997,
 He maintains that the Economic and Social Committee
 was at fault in taking 28 months to draw up his staff                     — order the European Parliament to reclassify the
 report for the period 1992 to 1994. By reason of that                         applicant as from the date of his appointment and
 fault, the Joint Committee on Promotion 1996 did not                          reconstitute his career bracket accordingly,
 have available the up-to-date staff report on the
 applicant's ability, efficiency and conduct for the
 promotion year 1996 .                                                     — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-587/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Aurel Moldovan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Aurel Moldovan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
      (Case C-587/14)
      (2015/C 107/22)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Aurel Moldovan

         Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

         Questions referred

                  1)

                  In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?

                  2)

                  In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?


               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/1

         (2007/C 183/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

      OJ C 140, 23.6.2007

      OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

      OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

      OJ C 96, 28.4.2007

      OJ C 95, 28.4.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-413/05: Action brought on  22 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/9

         Action brought on 22 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-413/05)
   (2006/C 22/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and C. Loggi, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not taking all the necessary legal and administrative measures to comply with Directive 2002/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships, or by not notifying the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive in national law expired on 23 November 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 324, p. 53.


title: Case T-495/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (Watt)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/61

         Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (Watt)
   (Case T-495/13)
   2013/C 344/112
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sales & Solutions (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inceda Holding (Cologne, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1193/2012-4;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 090 471

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Inceda Holding

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-131/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Corman SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB) (Protection of the European Union's financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3 — Limitation period for bringing proceedings — Time limit — Sectoral rules — Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 — Different application of the limitation rules in the case of an irregularity committed by the recipient of a subsidy or by the persons with whom the recipient has entered into contracts)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Corman SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)
   (Case C-131/10) (1)

   (Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3 - Limitation period for bringing proceedings - Time limit - Sectoral rules - Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 - Different application of the limitation rules in the case of an irregularity committed by the recipient of a subsidy or by the persons with whom the recipient has entered into contracts)
   2011/C 55/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corman SA

      Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 3(1) and (3) of Council Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Determination of the limitation period for bringing proceedings — Applicability of the relevant sectoral Community provisions or the relevant national provisions — Different application of the limitation rules where an irregularity is committed by the recipient of the subsidy and where one is committed by persons with whom the recipient has entered into contracts?

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Since it does not lay down a limitation rule for bringing proceedings applicable to the clearing to an appropriate account of securities provided in tendering procedures in the butter, concentrated butter and cream market, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs does not constitute sectoral rules providing for a ‘shorter period’ within the meaning of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. The four year limitation period established in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 therefore applies to the clearing to an appropriate account of such securities, subject, however, to the possibility retained by the Member States, under Article 3(3) of the regulation, of providing for longer limitation periods.

               2.

               When bringing proceedings concerning an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 2988/95, Member States retain the possibility of applying longer limitation periods within the meaning of Article 3(3) of that regulation, which extends, in the context of Regulation No 2571/97, to situations in which the irregularities for which the successful tenderer is liable were committed by the persons with whom the tenderer has entered into contracts.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.