title: Case C-222/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland)) — Kronospan Mielec sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 9(2)(c) and (e) — Research and development work carried out by engineers — Determination of the place where services are supplied)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland)) — Kronospan Mielec sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie
   (Case C-222/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 9(2)(c) and (e) - Research and development work carried out by engineers - Determination of the place where services are supplied)
   2010/C 328/10
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kronospan Mielec sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelncy Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) and of the third indent of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and of Articles 52(a) and 56(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Determination, for taxation purposes, of the place where services are supplied — Research and development services provided to a taxable person established in the European Community but outside the Member State in which those services were physically carried out — Classification of those services as either ‘scientific activities’ or ‘services of engineers’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Services consisting of research and development work relating to the environment and technology, carried out by engineers established in one Member State on a contract basis for the benefit of a recipient established in another Member State, must be classified as ‘services of engineers’ within the meaning of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case C-216/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another Member State — Purely quantitative assessment criteria — Article 34 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions on imports)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-216/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another Member State - Purely quantitative assessment criteria - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports)
   2013/C 141/05
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 34 TFEU and of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof — National legislation imposing financial sanctions, above certain thresholds, in relation to the holding, for private purposes, of tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another — Purely quantitative assessment criteria — Quantitative restrictions on imports

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by using a purely quantitative criterion to assess whether the holding by private individuals of manufactured tobacco from another Member State is of a commercial nature and by applying that criterion per individual vehicle (and not per person), and in respect of all of the tobacco products in aggregate, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and, specifically, under Articles 8 and 9 thereof;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case C-184/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA (API) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA (API) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-184/13)
   2013/C 207/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA (API)

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the protection of freedom of competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (under Article 4(3) TEU, Article 101 TFEU, and Articles 49, 56 and 96 TFEU) compatible — and, if so, to what extent — with statutory provisions adopted by EU Member States which lay down minimum operating costs for the road haulage sector which involve the fixing by bodies external [to the contracting parties] of a component of the charge for the service concerned and, accordingly, of the contract price?

               2.

               Are such limitations of those principles justifiable — and, if so, under what conditions — in the light of the need to safeguard the public interest in road traffic safety and, in terms of that functional consideration, is there a proper place for the fixing of minimum operating costs as provided for under Article 83a of Legislative Decree No 112/2008 (as subsequently amended and supplemented)?

               3.

               Can the determination of minimum operating costs, to the above end, be left — in the absence of criteria predetermined by the legislation — to voluntary agreements between the types of trader concerned, failing which to bodies whose composition is characterised by the strong presence of persons representing private traders in that sector?


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-49/03 (1)

   (2004/C 118/66)
   By order of 26 March 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-49/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Rennes): Alain Rousseau v Association Comité économique régional fruits et légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL).

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Case C-412/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart) — Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG (Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Directive 85/577/EEC — First paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) — Contract for long-term credit — Right of cancellation)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart) — Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG
   (Case C-412/06) (1)

   (Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577/EEC - First paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) - Contract for long-term credit - Right of cancellation)
   (2008/C 128/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Annelore Hamilton

      Defendant: Volksbank Filder eG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Cancellation of a loan contract, negotiated away from business premises, to finance the acquisition of shares in a real property fund — National legislation under which the right of cancellation expires one month after both parties have performed in full their contractual obligations, even where a consumer has not been informed of that right
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive may be exercised no later than one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations under a contract for long-term credit, where the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right.

      (1)  OJ C 310 of 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-385/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of 18 October 2000 in the case of F. W. L. de Groot v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen te Haarlem

text:
C 372/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23.12.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                    Is it compatible with Article 4 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC
Nederlanden by judgment of 18 October 2000 in the case                     concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1) to subject
of F. W. L. de Groot v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst                   to capital duty the grant of an interest-free loan by a
         Particulieren/Ondernemingen te Haarlem                            shareholder to his company, if at the time of granting the loan
                                                                           there existed a profit and loss transfer agreement between the
                         (Case C-385/00)                                   company and the shareholder?
                         (2000/C 372/10)                                   (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 Octo-
ber 2000, received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2000,
in the case of F. W. L. de Groot v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen te Haarlem (Tax
Inspector for Individuals and Undertakings, Haarlem) on the
following questions:                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de
                                                                           Trento — Sezione Civile by order of that court of
1.   Do Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 20 October 2000 in the case of Distillerie F.lli Cipriani
     Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC)                                    SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
     No 1612/68 (1) of the Council preclude a system for the
     avoidance of double taxation under which a resident of a                                        (Case C-395/00)
     Member State, who in a given year (also) derives income
     in another Member State from an employment exercised
     there, on which he is taxed in that other Member State                                          (2000/C 372/12)
     without account being taken of that employee’s personal
     and family circumstances, loses in his State of residence a           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     proportional part of the advantage of his tax-free allow-             European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Trento —
     ance and personal tax concessions?                                    Sezione Civile (District Court, Trento — Civil Section) of
                                                                           20 October 2000, received at the Court Registry on 26 October
2.   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do specific             2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Distillerie. F.lli
     requirements then arise from Community law with                       Cipriani SpA against Ministero delle Finanze (Ministry of
     regard to the manner in which the personal and family                 Finance) on the following questions:
     circumstances of the employee concerned must be taken
     into account in his State of residence?                               1.     Where products destined for export via one or more
                                                                                Member States are moved under the suspension arrange-
(1) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                 ment defined in Article 4(c) of Council Directive
                                                                                92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 (1) but fail to reach their
                                                                                destination, and it is impossible to ascertain where the
                                                                                irregularity occurred or where the offence took place, is
                                                                                Article 20(3) of that directive to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                that the Member State of departure may collect the excise
                                                                                duties only if the party that has guaranteed payment has
                                                                                been promptly put in a position to ascertain that there
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-                             has been no discharge from the suspension arrangement,
nanzhof by order of that court of 9 August 2000 in                                in such a way as to enable that party to provide, within
the case of Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v Norddeutsche                                the four-month period following the date of dispatch of
Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung von Entsor-                            the products, satisfactory evidence of the correctness of
         gungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken mbH                                    the operation or of the place where the irregularity in fact
                                                                                occurred or where the offence was in fact committed?
                         (Case C-392/00)
                                                                           2.     In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                                does the same interpretation also hold good, in the same
                         (2000/C 372/11)                                          circumstances, where the Member State of departure is
                                                                                also the Member State where the offence was committed
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            or where the irregularity occurred, or, in such a case, does
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof                           the presumption set out in Article 20(2) of Directive
(Federal Finance Court), Germany, of 9 August 2000, which                         92/12/EEC apply? If that presumption applies, may
was received at the Court Registry on 25 October 2000, for a                      evidence be furnished of the correctness of the operation
preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v                       or of the place where the irregularity in fact occurred or
Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung                           where the offence was in fact committed, and is such
von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken mbH on the                            evidence subject to the time-limit laid down in
following question:                                                               Article 20(3)?


title: Case T-686/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl — Earlier EU figurative mark café crem — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)
   (Case T-686/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl - Earlier EU figurative mark café crem - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 078/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Majer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2015 (Case R 2517/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Marcas Costa Brava and Excellent Brands JMI.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Marcas Costa Brava, SL, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-290/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Weber v Commission (Access to documents of the Community institutions — Refusal — Application initiating proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Weber v Commission
   (Case T-290/05) (1)

   (Access to documents of the Community institutions - Refusal - Application initiating proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 331/93)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Friedrich Weber (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: W. Declair, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Ladenburger, Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Secretariat-General of the Commission of 27 May 2005, rejecting the request for access by the applicant to a letter sent by the Directorate General for Competition to the Federal German Government concerning State aid proceedings.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case F-58/08: Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Avogadri and Others v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/74

         Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Avogadri and Others v Commission
   (Case F-58/08)
   (2008/C 209/137)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Chiara Avogadri and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the decisions fixing the applicants' conditions of employment as members of the contract staff or members of the temporary staff in so far as the duration of their contract or its extension is limited to a specific duration.
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decisions fixing the applicants' conditions of employment in so far as the duration of their contract or its extension is limited to a specific duration;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-119/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy
   (Case C-119/13)
   2013/C 164/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Wedding

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               If the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him, must the defendant respect certain time-limits in bringing his application for review? In that connection, must recourse be had in particular to the scheme established in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

               3.

               Also if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.


title: Case T-393/05: Action brought on  17 October 2005  — Pickering v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/27

         Action brought on 17 October 2005 — Pickering v Commission
   (Case T-393/05)
   (2006/C 10/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Stephen Pickering (La Hulpe, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               Declare void the applicant's wage slips for the months of December 2004, January 2005 and February 2005, and all the subsequent wage slips, to the extent that they apply the illegal provisions of Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, and Regulation No 856/2004 fixing the new correction coefficients and Regulation No 31/2005 adjusting them,

               —

               As far as is necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 4 July 2005, rejecting the applicant's complaint (R/299/05),

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs in the case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official, is a national of the United Kingdom. Before the entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004 (1) amending the Staff Regulations, the applicant regularly made use of the possibility of transferring part of his remuneration to his country of origin. In accordance with the rules in force, the part transferred was increased by an amount resulting from the application of a ‘correction coefficient’, which was supposed to reflect the difference between the cost of living in the country of employment and in that of origin.
   The new Staff Regulations lay down strict conditions for such transfers, in contrast to what was formerly the case. Moreover, the ‘correction coefficient’ applicable is no longer equal to that applicable to the remuneration of officials employed in the country to which the transfer is made. The latter benefit from a coefficient calculated on the basis of the cost of living in the country's capital, while the coefficient applicable to the transfers is calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country to which the transfer is made. Lastly, the new provisions abolish the application of the ‘correction coefficient’ to pensions.
   In support of his action, the applicant submits a plea of the illegality of Regulation No 723/2004 to the extent that it concerns the transfer of remuneration to the country of origin, alleging, firstly, that the grounds on which that regulation is based are misconceived. Next, he alleges a breach of the principle of equal treatment, to the extent that the new system provides for the application of a different coefficient to officials carrying out their activities in the country to which the transfer is made. The applicant also alleges a breach of the principles of legitimate expectations, acquired rights and legal certainty, and of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.
   As regards the pensions scheme, in addition to the three pleas above, the applicant pleads that it infringes the former officials' freedom of establishment, to the extent that it favours their establishment, after their employment has ceased, in a country with a lower cost of living.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities, OJ L 124 of 27.4.2002, p. 1.


title: Case T-126/11 P: Appeal brought on 3 March 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2010 in Case F-1/10, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/17

         Appeal brought on 3 March 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2010 in Case F-1/10, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-126/11 P)
   2011/C 120/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside the judgment under appeal, in so far as the court at first instance: (a) rejected as inadmissible some of the claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance; (b) rejected certain other claims made at first instance on the ground that they were closely connected with those rejected as inadmissible: (c) ordered the appellant to bear his own costs in the proceedings at first instance.

               —

               Declare that all the claims made at first instance were admissible in their entirety and without any exception.

               —

               Allow in their entirety and without exception those claims made at first instance which were rejected as inadmissible or dismissed by the court at first instance, so that all the claims made at first instance, which, for all legal intents and purposes, are to be deemed to be reproduced in the present application, are allowed by the Court on the basis of the part of judgment under appeal that is favourable to the appellant in conjunction with the judgment to be delivered by this appeal court.

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case under appeal back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on the claims which were unlawfully rejected as inadmissible by the court at first instance and the claims unlawfully dismissed by that court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 14 December 2010. That judgment dismissed in part an action for annulment of the decision refusing reimbursement at the normal rate of various medical expenses and the decision refusing supplementary reimbursement, namely at the rate of 100 %, of those medical expenses, and an order that the Commission pay to the appellant a certain sum in respect of the medical expenses owing to him.
   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground, alleging that the findings in the judgment under appeal concerning the object of the action and those relating to the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility were unlawful.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and illogical failure to have regard to the relevant case-law.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging total failure to state reasons, by reason inter alia of failure to make preliminary inquiries, distortion of facts and of the claims made at first instance.


title: Case C-335/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 July 2011 — HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 July 2011 — HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB
   (Case C-335/11)
   2011/C 269/61
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Sø- og Handelsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring

      Defendant: Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is any person who, because of physical, mental or psychological injuries, cannot or can only to a limited extent carry out his work in a period that satisfies the requirement as to duration specified in paragraph 45 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-13/05 Navas
                               (1) covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of the directive?

                           (b)

                           Can a condition caused by a medically diagnosed incurable illness be covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of the directive?

                           (c)

                           Can a condition caused by a medically diagnosed temporary illness be covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of the directive?

               2.

               Should a permanent reduction in functional capacity which does not entail a need for special aids or the like but means only that the person concerned is not capable of working full-time be regarded as a disability in the sense in which that term is used in Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2)?

               3.

               Is a reduction in working hours among the measures covered by Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               4.

               Does Council Directive 2000/78/EC preclude the application of a provision of national law under which an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee with a shortened notice period where the employee has received his salary during periods of illness for a total of 120 days during a period of 12 consecutive months, in the case of an employee who must be regarded as disabled within the meaning of the directive, where

                           (a)

                           the absence was caused by the disability
                           or

                           (b)

                           the absence was due to the fact that the employer did not implement the measures appropriate in the specific situation to enable a person with a disability to perform his work?

      (1)  [2006] ECR I-6467.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-60/11: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Kraft Foods Global Brands v OHIM — fenaco (SUISSE PREMIUM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SUISSE PREMIUM — Earlier Community figurative mark Premium — Absolute ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Opposition rejected — Article8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Kraft Foods Global Brands v OHIM — fenaco (SUISSE PREMIUM)
   (Case T-60/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SUISSE PREMIUM - Earlier Community figurative mark Premium - Absolute ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Opposition rejected - Article8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC (Northfield, Illinois, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: fenaco Genossenschaft (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 522/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC and fenaco Genossenschaft.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case T-250/06 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2006 by Ott and Others against the order of 30 June 2006 by the Civil Service Tribubal in Case F-87/05 Ott and Others v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/38

         Appeal brought on 11 September 2006 by Ott and Others against the order of 30 June 2006 by the Civil Service Tribubal in Case F-87/05 Ott and Others v Commission
   (Case T-250/06 P)
   (2006/C 281/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Martial Ott (Oberanven, Luxembourg), Fernando Lopez Tola (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) et Francis Weiler (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 in Case F-87/05;

               —

               Rule on the expenses, costs and fees and order the Commission to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In their appeal, the appellants claim that the Court of First Instance committed breaches of procedure in rejecting the application as manifestly inadmissible as regards Mr Weiler. In addition, the applicants contend that the Civil Service Tribunal committed breaches of procedure when considering the substance of the pleas based on infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, infringement of the GIP of Article 45, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-296/07: Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Korsch v OHIM (PharmaCheck)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/20

         Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Korsch v OHIM (PharmaCheck)
   (Case T-296/07)
   (2007/C 235/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Korsch AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by J. Grzam, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2007 (Case R 358/2007-4) concerning the word mark No 5 310 214 ‘PharmaCheck’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PharmaCheck’ for goods in Class 9 (Application No 5 310 214).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).


title: Case T-162/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission (Competition — Mergers — Air transport — Decision declaring the merger compatible with the common market — Assessment of the effects of the merger on competition — Undertakings)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission
   (Case T-162/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Mergers - Air transport - Decision declaring the merger compatible with the common market - Assessment of the effects of the merger on competition - Undertakings))
   (2015/C 213/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer and A. Habeler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented initially by: C. Pesendorfer, E. Riedl and A. Posch, and subsequently by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, acting as Agents); Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented initially by: S. Völcker and A. Israel, and subseqeuntly by: S. Völcker and J. Orologas, lawyers), and Österreichische Industrieholding AG (Vienna) (represented by: H. Kristoferitsch, P. Lewisch and B. Kofler-Senoner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C (2009) 6690 final of 28 August 2009 declaring a merger compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.5440 — Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Niki Luftfahrt GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, Österreichische Industrieholding AG and Deutsche Lufthansa AG.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-345/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich — Austria) — Gottfried Heinrich (Article 254(2) EC — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 2(3) — Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 — Aviation security — Annex — List of articles prohibited on board aircraft — Not published — Binding force)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich — Austria) — Gottfried Heinrich
   (Case C-345/06) (1)

   (Article 254(2) EC - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 2(3) - Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 - Aviation security - Annex - List of articles prohibited on board aircraft - Not published - Binding force)
   2009/C 113/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gottfried Heinrich

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich — Interpretation of Article 254(2) EC and Article 2(3) of 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) — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 of 4 April 2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (OJ 2003 L 89, p. 9) — Annex to the regulation, establishing detailed measures in respect of aviation security, and in particular a list of prohibited articles that cannot be brought on board an aircraft, not published

      Operative part of the judgment

   The annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 of 4 April 2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2004 of 15 January 2004, which was not published in the Official Journal of the European Union, has no binding force in so far as it seeks to impose obligations on individuals.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case C-151/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 24 March 2017 — Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 24 March 2017 — Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health
   (Case C-151/17)
   (2017/C 161/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Swedish Match AB

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

      Questions referred

   Are Articles 1(c) and 17 of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) invalid by reason of:

               i.

               breach of the EU general principle of non-discrimination;

               ii.

               breach of the EU general principle of proportionality;

               iii.

               breach of Article 5(3) TEU and the EU principle of subsidiarity;

               iv.

               breach of Article 296(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’);

               v.

               breach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU; and

               vi.

               breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

      (1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014, L 127, p. 1).


title: Case F-4/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Nastvogel v Council (Staff case — Staff reports — Opinion of the Reports Committee — Downgrading of analytical assessments — Dialogue between staff member and assessor — Consultation of the various superiors — Knowledge of staff member’s work by second assessor — Statement of reasons — Sick leave taken into account)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Nastvogel v Council
   (Case F-4/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Staff reports - Opinion of the Reports Committee - Downgrading of analytical assessments - Dialogue between staff member and assessor - Consultation of the various superiors - Knowledge of staff member’s work by second assessor - Statement of reasons - Sick leave taken into account)
   2011/C 362/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nastvogel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision establishing the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2007.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls Mrs Nastvogel’s staff report for the period from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2007;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010, p. 54.


title: Case C-680/11: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 14 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 14 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-680/11) (1)

   2013/C 108/42
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 July 2003 in Case C-44/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Dornbirn): Helmut Horn v Karl Schelling

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/16

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 24 July 2003
   in Case C-44/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Dornbirn): Helmut Horn v Karl Schelling (1)

   (Principles of Community law - Political sanctions imposed on a Member State)
   (2004/C 94/32)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-44/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Bezirksgericht Dornbirn (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Helmut Horn and Karl Schelling — on the interpretation of Article 7 EU, and Articles 12 EC, 49 EC to 55 EC and 87 EC — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 24 July 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Bezirksgericht Dornbirn by order of 16 December 2002 are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.


title: Case C-295/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Europamur Alimentación, S.A. v Dirección General de Consumo, Comercio y Artesanía de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Europamur Alimentación, S.A. v Dirección General de Consumo, Comercio y Artesanía de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia
   (Case C-295/16)
   (2016/C 305/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Murcia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Europamur Alimentación, S.A.

      Defendant: Dirección General de Consumo, Comercio y Artesanía de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Directive 2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 14 of Law 7/1996 of 15 January 1996 regulating retail commerce (Ley 7/1996, de 15 de enero, de Ordenación del Comercio Minorista), which is stricter than the directive in question in that it contains an initial prohibition, which also covers wholesalers, on selling at a loss, treating such a practice as an infringement of administrative law and therefore imposing a penalty in respect of it, account being taken of the fact that, in addition to regulating the market, the Spanish legislation is intended to protect the interests of consumers?

               2.

               Must Directive 2005/29/EC be interpreted as precluding Article 14 of Law 7/1996 even though that provision of national law permits selling at a loss to be excluded from the general prohibition where (i) the infringing party shows that the objective of selling at a loss was to match the prices of one or more competitors with the ability materially to affect that party’s sales or (ii) the sale involves perishable goods which will shortly be unfit for use?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2002 in Case T-114/00: Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum eV v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Scheme for the acquisition of agricultural and forestry land in the former German Democratic Republic — Failure to initiate the formal review procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC — System of aid — Action for annulment — Association — Admissibility)

text:
C 44/22                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and K.-D. Borchardt), supported by
                                                                             Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: initially W.-D. Plessing
                       of 5 December 2002                                    and T. Jürgensen, and, subsequently, Plessing and M. Lumma):
                                                                             Application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                             of 22 December 1999 relating to proposed State Aid No 506/
in Case T-70/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the
                                                                             99, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             Composition), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                             J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christen-
(Temporary agents — Execution of a judgment of the Court                     sen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                 of First Instance — Dismissal)                              5 December 2002, in which it:
                          (2003/C 44/38)
                                                                             1.     Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             2.     Reserves costs.
In Case T-70/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer, formerly a temporary                      (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
agent of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Hoeilaart, Belgium, represented by G. van der Wal,
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
G. Valsesia and C. Van der Hauwaert, subsequently F. Clotuche-
Duvieusart and H.M.H. Speyart) — application for annulment
of the Commission’s decision of 24 January 2000 terminating
the applicant’s contract of employment as temporary agent —                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
M. Vilaras, President, and V.Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                                    of 10 December 2002
gave a judgment on 5 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                             in Case T-123/00: Dr. Karl Thomae GmbH v Commission
1.     Dismissed the application;                                                            of the European Communities ( 1)
2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                                                                             (Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2309/93 — Community marketing authorisation —
( 1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                  Regulation (EC) No 542/95 — Variation of the terms of the
                                                                             authorisation — Name and package layout of the medicinal
                                                                                product)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/40)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                       of 5 December 2002
in Case T-114/00: Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigen-                       In Case T-123/00, Dr Karl Thomae GmbH, established in
   tum eV v Commission of the European Communities (1)                       Biberach an der Riß (Germany), represented by D. Waelbroeck
                                                                             and D. Brinckman, Lawyers, with an address for service in
(State aid — Scheme for the acquisition of agricultural and                  Luxembourg, supported by European Federation of Pharma-
forestry land in the former German Democratic Republic —                     ceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), established in
Failure to initiate the formal review procedure provided for                 Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Perkins, Solicitor, and
in Article 88(2) EC — System of aid — Action for annulment                   M. Van Kerckhove, Lawyer, with an address for service in
                — Association — Admissibility)                               Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: R. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk), supported by
                          (2003/C 44/39)                                     Council of the European Union (Agents: M.-C. Giorgi and
                                                                             G. Houttuin): Application for annulment of the decision of
                                                                             1 March 2000 of the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             Medicinal Products, rejecting an application for variation of
                                                                             certain terms of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal
                                                                             product, ‘Daquiran’, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
In Case T-114/00, Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum                     composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
eV, established in Borken (Germany), represented by M. Pech-                 P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
stein, professor, v Commission of the European Communities                   has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-331/11: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — Article 14 — Existing landfill — Lack of site conditioning plan — Continued operation)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/6

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-331/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfill of waste - Article 14 - Existing landfill - Lack of site conditioning plan - Continued operation)
   2013/C 171/10
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Operation of the Žilina-Považský Chlmec waste site without a site conditioning plan

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by authorising the operation of the Žilina-Považský Chlmec waste site without a site conditioning plan and in the absence of a final decision on the continued operation on the basis of an approved site conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 14(a) to (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

               2.

               Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case F-142/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Council

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/26

         Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-142/11)
   2012/C 65/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD9 after succeeding in competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of unit (AD9) in the field of translation having Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’, and an application for damages

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 9 December 2010 and the subsequent decision of 7 October 2011;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant damages;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-450/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/40

         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission
   (Case T-450/14)
   2014/C 303/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Osaka, Japan); and J-Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by: M. Hansen, L. Crocco, J. Ruiz Calzado and S. Völcker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision insofar as it holds the applicants liable for a single complex continuous infringement including the European and the A/R configuration or, in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1(8)(a)-(c) of the decision insofar as it holds the applicants liable for an infringement in the period between 26 July 2006 and 10 April 2008;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul Article 2(m) of the Commission decision and reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in view of the applicants’ substantially limited involvement in the period between 26 July 2006 and 10 April 2008; and

               —

               annul the decision in its entirety as it relies to a decisive extent on evidence illegally seized at the premises of Nexans SA and Nexans France;

               —

               ordering the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to prove a single complex continuous infringement involving an agreement between Asian and European producers to stay out of each other’s home territories and an agreement to allocate among European companies projects within the European Economic Area (EEA).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors in fact and in law in the application of Article 101 TFEU, in so far as the contested decision failed to prove to the required legal standard the applicants’ involvement over the entire duration of the infringement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in calculating the fine imposed on the applicants, as the fine imposed does not reflect the gravity of the infringement and the applicants’ substantially limited role for a significant duration thereof.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement and rights of defence as the contested decision relies to a decisive extent on evidence that the Commission illegally seized during inspections at the premises of Nexans.


title: Case C-430/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the case of Sea-Land Service Inc. against Customs Inspector, Rotterdam District

text:
22.1.2000              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 20/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                    (b) If not, is it otherwise if participants in the scheme are
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that court                       charged for services provided?
of 27 October 1999 in the case of H. van den Bor BV
  against Het Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau
                         (Case C-428/99)                                 (c) Must Question 1(b) be answered differently if that
                                                                              charge is levied on participants in the scheme whose
                          (2000/C 20/30)                                      participation is mandatory, though not on other users
                                                                              such as inland navigation or sea vessels with a length
                                                                              of less than 41 metres?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Commercial Court of Appeal) of
27 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on 8 No-              2. (a) If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge
vember 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of H. van                   constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,
den Bor BV against Het Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbu-                   does such restriction then come under the exception
reau on the following questions:                                              provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC
                                                                              Treaty for provisions justified on grounds of public
1. Was the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature                        security?
    Management and Fisheries authorised, pending enactment
    of Community rules in the matter, to adopt national rules
    enabling compensation to be paid in respect of loss
    suffered by the person concerned as a result of the                  (b) Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2(a)
    slaughter of British calves, as occurred in the case of the               whether the charge is greater than the actual cost of
    decisions by the abovementioned Minister of 23 April                      the service provided to the individual vessel?
    1996?
2. If the answer to Question 1. is in the negative, does
    Community law preclude the honouring of the expectation           3. If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge
    raised by a decision under the abovementioned national               constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,
    rules that a specified amount of compensation will be paid,          and such restriction is not justified under the exception
    which if solely national law were applicable, would have             provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC
    to be regarded as justified?                                         Treaty, can the restriction be justified either because it
                                                                         merely concerns a ‘sales arrangement’, as laid down in
3. If Question 1. Is answered in the affirmative, does Com-              Keck and Mithouard, and there is thus no question of
    munity law, and in particular Regulation No 717/96,                  discrimination, or because it meets the yardsticks for such
    preclude the compensation to the appellant from being                legislation laid down in other judgments, in particular in
    determined in accordance with the abovementioned                     Gebhard?
    national rules.
                                                                      4. (a) Must a Member State’s legislation such as the VBS be
                                                                              deemed to constitute aid within the meaning of
                                                                              Article 92(1) (now Article 87(1)) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                              inasmuch as it exempts certain categories of partici-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
                                                                              pants, particularly inland navigation, from the require-
by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the
                                                                              ment to pay the charge?
case of Sea-Land Service Inc. against Customs Inspector,
                       Rotterdam District
                         (Case C-430/99)                                 (b) If so, does such aid come within the prohibition of that
                                                                              provision?
                          (2000/C 20/31)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State                   (c) If Question 4(b) is also answered affirmatively, does
(Council of State) of 4 November 1999, received at the Court                  the description of aid prohibited under Community
Registry on 8 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                  law also have consequences under Community law for
case of Sea-Land Service Inc. against Customs Inspector,                      the remuneration which the participants, apart from
Rotterdam District on the following questions:                                those exempted, are required to pay?
1. (a) Does legislation such as the VBS, in so far as it provides
        for mandatory participation in traffic accompaniment,
        constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services,
        as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 in
        conjunction with Article 59 (now Article 49) of the EC
        Treaty?


title: Case C-487/03: Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
24.1.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 21/19
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                           (Case C-486/03)                                       period all the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                                11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                            (2004/C 21/34)                                       to a number of undertakings in Vizcaya (notified under
                                                                                No C(2001)1765) in the form of a tax credit of 45 % of
                                                                                the investments made, or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                                notify the Commission of such provisions in accordance
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Nov-                      its obligations under that decision;
ember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,              —     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period all the measures necessary to comply with
      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
      11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain            C-485/03.
      to a number of undertakings in Guipúzcoa (notified
      under No C(2001)1764) in the form of a tax credit of
      45 % of the investments made, or, in any event, by
      failing to notify the Commission of such provisions in
      accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision;
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-488/03)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
C-485/03.                                                                                (2004/C 21/36)
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
                                                                           vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                           (Case C-487/03)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                            (2004/C 21/35)                                       period all the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                                11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                                                                                to a number of recently created undertakings in Álva
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        (notified under No C(2001)1760) in the form of a tax
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-                       credit of 45 % of the investments made, or, in any event,
vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,                           by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions in
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,                    accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision;


title: Case T-151/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  —Laboratoire du Bain v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation — Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects — Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions — Causal link — Unusual and special damage)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 —Laboratoire du Bain v Council and Commission
   (Case T-151/00) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects - Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions - Causal link - Unusual and special damage)
   (2006/C 48/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Le Laboratoire du Bain (Nontron, France) (represented by C. Lazarus, F. Prunet and L. Van den Hende, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by J. Huber and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, acting as Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by L. Gussetti, V. Di Bucci, C. Brown, E. Righini and M. de Pauw, and subsequently by P. Kuijper, L. Gussetti, V. Di Bucci, C. Brown and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by R. Silva de Lapuerta, and subsequently by E. Braquehais Conesa, acting as Agents)
   Application for
   compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on imports of the applicant's effervescent bath products, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.


title: Case T-240/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2014 by Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-73/12, Bodson and Others v EIB

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/17

         Appeal brought on 22 April 2014 by Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-73/12, Bodson and Others v EIB
   (Case T-240/14 P)
   2014/C 223/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France); Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France); Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg); Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg); Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg); Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg); and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellants

   The appellants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-73/12;

               —

               consequently, uphold the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul the decisions to apply to the applicants the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 13 December 2011 setting a salary progression capped at 2,8 % and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee of 14 February 2012 establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 % of salary, decisions that are contained in the salary slips of April 2012, and annul to the same extent all the decisions contained in subsequent salary slips;

                           —

                           accordingly,

                                       —

                                       order the defendant to pay the difference between the remuneration resulting from the aforementioned decisions of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 13 December 2011 and of the EIB’s Management Committee of 14 February 2012 and that paid in application of the preceding salary scheme, with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 12 April 2012 and then on the 12th day of every month until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points;

                                       —

                                       order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1,5 % of the monthly remuneration of each applicant;

                           —

                           order the EIB to pay all the costs;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the difference in character between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship governed by the Staff Regulations was not observed, an infringement of the fundamental conditions of the employment relationship and that the Memorandum of Understanding was not accorded the correct treatment in law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a contradiction in the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal and distortion of the information in the file.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty, of non-retroactivity and of foreseeability, and distortion of the information in the file.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal failed to correctly exercise its power of review as regards the manifest error of assessment and infringement of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case T-296/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2011 — EFIM v Commission (Competition — Concerted practice — Abuse of a dominant position — Markets for ink cartridges — Decision rejecting a complaint — No Community interest)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2011 — EFIM v Commission
   (Case T-296/09) (1)

   (Competition - Concerted practice - Abuse of a dominant position - Markets for ink cartridges - Decision rejecting a complaint - No Community interest)
   2012/C 13/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and A. Biolan, Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Lexmark International Technology SA (Meyrin, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, and G. Eclair-Heath, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C-3/39.391 concerning purported infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Lexmark International Technology SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-139/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Spain) — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba, Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 3(1)(c) — National word mark La Milla de Oro — Grounds for refusal of registration or invalidity — Signs indicating geographical origin)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/5

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Spain) — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba, Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, SA
   (Case C-139/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(c) - National word mark La Milla de Oro - Grounds for refusal of registration or invalidity - Signs indicating geographical origin))
   (2017/C 283/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba, Rodrigo Moreno Benavente

      Defendant: Abadía Retuerta SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A sign such as ‘la Milla de Oro’, referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that it can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value and quality, cannot constitute an indication of geographical origin, since that sign must be accompanied by a name designating a geographical place so that the actual physical space with which a strong concentration of a product or service of a high degree of value or quality is associated may be identified.

               2.

               Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a sign such as ‘la Milla de Oro’, referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that such a product or service can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value, is unlikely to have characteristics the use of which as a trade mark would constitute a ground for invalidity within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case T-477/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 SE — Blusen Stenau v OHIM (Sport Eybl & Sports Experts (SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative mark SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT — Prior national word mark SE So Easy — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 SE — Blusen Stenau v OHIM (Sport Eybl & Sports Experts (SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT)
      (Case T-477/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT - Prior national word mark SE So Easy - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 25/95)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: SE — Blusen Stenau GmbH (Gronau, Germany) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: M. Pachinger and S. Fürst., lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2010 (Case R 139372009-1) concerning an opposition procedure between SE — Blusen Stenau GmbH and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 July 2010 (Case R 139372009-1);

                  2.

                  Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by SE — Blusen Stenau GmbH;

                  3.

                  Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-10/08: Action brought on 9 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/16

         Action brought on 9 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-10/08)
   (2008/C 79/29)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by maintaining in force Paragraph 5 of the Autoverolaki (Law on car tax) and Paragraph 102(1)(4) of the Arvonlisäverolaki (Law on value added tax), applying, for the purposes of car tax assessment, the same taxable value to cars under three months old as to new cars and applying to cars under six months old a scale according to which the value of a car decreases by 0,8 % per month in circumstances where it has not been established that there are any such vehicles on the Finnish market, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90 of the EC Treaty and that, by allowing the tax under Paragraph 5 of the Autoverolaki to be deducted from the value added tax payable on sale, Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1), replaced after the recasting of Directive 77/388/EEC by Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2);

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   A person liable for value added tax who imports a vehicle into Finland has to pay value added tax on car tax to the customs authorities in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Autoverolaki, but since, according to Paragraph 102(1)(4) of the Arvonlisäverolaki, he can deduct the corresponding amount of VAT payable on the sale, there is no VAT on car tax left in the value of the vehicle. The VAT on car tax which has been deducted is not transferred to the amount the consumer has to pay. If a private individual registers a vehicle for the first time in Finland he also has to pay VAT on car tax to the customs authorities but he cannot deduct it. That system, which distinguishes between sales by persons liable to VAT related to commercial activities at different stages of trade and acquisitions by final consumers from other Member States means that the VAT on car tax that a private individual has to pay for a used vehicle obtained in another Member State and registered for the first time in Finland is probably higher than the residual VAT on car tax in the value of a similar used car which has already been registered in Finland when the person liable to car tax was also liable to VAT and the vehicle has been sold in connection with taxable commercial activities, in which latter case the value of the vehicle does not include VAT on car tax because it has been deducted in its entirety, infringes Article 90 of the EC Treaty.
   In Case C-101/00 Siilin the Court held that VAT on car tax was not VAT within the meaning of the Sixth Directive. The right under the Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki to deduct VAT on car tax related to commercial activities subject to tax was contrary to the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC, according to which VAT may be deducted only from VAT.
   According to the Finnish Autoverolaki, the value of cars under three months old which are in use is not reduced and they are taxed as new vehicles. The value of a vehicle begins to go down from the moment the vehicle is purchased or brought into use. The taxation of used cars under three months old at the same level as new cars is contrary to Article 90 of the EC Treaty. The provisions of the Autoverolaki also infringe Article 90 of the EC Treaty because they apply a scale to cars between 3 and 6 months of age according to which the value of a car decreases by 0,8 % per month in circumstances where it has not been established that there are any similar vehicles on the Finnish market, because using that scale for a linear reduction in value of 0,8 % there is no guarantee that the amount of tax chargeable does not exceed in any circumstances the amount of residual tax included in the value of similar vehicles already registered in Finland.

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-210/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 1698/2005 — Early retirement of farmers and farm workers — Definitive cessation of all commercial farming activity)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/20

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case C-210/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 1698/2005 - Early retirement of farmers and farm workers - Definitive cessation of all commercial farming activity))
   (2016/C 335/26)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.