title: Action brought on 30 November 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-375/95)

text:
3 . 2 . 96                  EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 31 / 11
Ministero delle Finanze ( Ministry of Finance ) and the                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial
Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero ( Ministry of Foreign                  Tribunal, Southampton ( United Kingdom ), by order of that
Trade ) on the following questions :                                        court of 23 November 1995 , in the case of James Paul
                                                                                Barker against Service Children's Schools
                                                                                ( Case C-3 74/95
1 . Should that part of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No                                                   ( 96/C 31 /21 )
       404/93 (') which limits the right to import Somali
       bananas — the so-called right of access, as recognized by
       the Lome Convention of 15 December 1989 , Protocol 5                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       thereto and the Joint Declaration contained in                       European Communities by an order of the Industrial
       Annex LXXIV to the Convention — be considered                        Tribunal,        Southampton          ( United Kingdom ),    of
       valid , in particular inasmuch as it:                                23 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                            Registry on 30 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the case of James Paul Barker against Service Children 's
       ( a ) establishes different import arrangements for                  Schools, on the following questions :
              traditional bananas, non-traditional bananas and
              bananas in excess of the quota set for that purpose           1 . Do the provisions of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
              and thus imposes quantitative restrictions;                        9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle
                                                                                of equal treatment for men and women as regards access
       ( b ) imposes the requirement to obtain an import                         to employment, vocational training and promotion, and
              document and to lodge a security for that purpose                  working conditions ( l ) permit a Member State to
              — a document which is not purely for statistical                   exclude from the measures required by Article 3 of the
              purposes and is subject to conditions that are                     said Directive, equal treatment ( as regards access to
              onerous and difficult to satisfy;                                  employment ) where the employment in question is to be
                                                                                at an establishment outside the territory of the Member
                                                                                State ?
       ( c ) imposes a customs duty of ECU 750 per tonne for
              bananas in excess of the tariff quota ?                       2 . If so, does that permit such exclusion where the
                                                                                prospective employer is the Member State itself?
2 . Should those parts of Commission Regulations ( EEC )                    3 . Also, if so, does that permit such exclusion where the
       Nos 1442/93 ( 2 ) and 1443/93 ( 3 ), as amended and                       prospective employment is in another Member State ?
       supplemented by later regulations, which limit, reduce
       or restrict unnecessarily and in a disproportionate                  (') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
       manner in relation to the objective pursued the right of
       access of Somali bananas, as guaranteed by the
       Convention referred to in Question 1 and by Council
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , be considered valid, in
       particular inasmuch as they :
                                                                            Action brought on 30 November 1995 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Hellenic
        ( a ) set the final date for the submission of applications                                         Republic
              for import licences up to three months and three                                         Case C-375/95 )
              weeks before the transaction and limit the period
              for submitting applications to one ( full ) week on                                        ( 96/C 31 /22
              only four occasions a year;
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice on 30 November 1995 by the
        ( b ) provide, in the event of non-compliance with the              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
              deadline , for forfeiture , in all cases, of the right to     Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser to the Commission,
              import for an entire quarter, without laying down             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
               specific rules or derogations for situations of force         Carlo Gomez de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service,
              majeure, unforeseeable circumstances and similar              Wagner Centre .
               situations ;
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
        ( c ) make the issue of the licence subject to the prior
               deposit of a security ?                                       1 . declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force in
                                                                                connection with the taxation of imported second-hand
                                                                                cars
0 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 142 , 12 . 6 . 1993 , p . 6 .                                       ( a ) Article 1 of Law No 363/1976 ( as amended by Law
 ( 3 ) OJ No L 142 , 12 . 6 . 1993 , t5 . 16 .                                          No 1676/1986 ) on the calculation, in connection
                                                                                with the special consumption tax, of the taxable
                                                                                value, with a deduction of only 5 % for each year of
                                                                                use, up to a maximum of 20% , from the selling
                                                                                price of equivalent new vehicles; and
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 / 12               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    3 . 2 . 96
      ( b ) Article 3 ( 1 ) of Law No 363/76 ( as last replaced by     similar reduction is provided for second-hand cars with the
            Article 2 ( 7 ) of Law No 2187/ 1994 ) which governs       latest technology this has created discrimination to the
            payment of the flat-rate added special duty without        detriment of imported second-hand cars with the latest
            any reduction for used cars; and                           technology in relation to equivalent Greek cars, since the
                                                                       residual portion of the reduced tax is incorporated in the
      ( c ) Article 1 of Law No 1858/1989 , as subsequently            latters' value, whereas the special consumption tax is
            amended by Laws No 1882/1990 ( Articles 37 ( 2 )           charged on the importation of the former without the
            and 42 ( 1 )) and No 2093/ 1992 ( Article 10 ) which       reduction provided for anti-pollutant cars .
            now applies with Article 2 ( 1 ) of Law
            No 2187/1 994, by which tax advantages ( reduction         The practical difficulties invoked by the Hellenic Republic
            of the special consumption tax ) are granted only to       cannot justify such an infringement of the first paragraph of
            new anti-pollutant cars and not to imported                Article 95 of the Treaty, as is clear from the consistent
            second-hand anti-pollutant cars,                           case-law of the Court of Justice .
      the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations
      pursuant to Article 95 of the EC Treaty;
2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                       order of that court of 15 and 22 November 1995 in criminal
A. Special consumption tax                                               proceedings against Tersilio Onorati and Palma Marulli
                                                                                ( Cases C-377/95 and C-378/95 )
This tax is levied on cars manufactured in Greece when they
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 /23 )
first circulate as new cars and also on imported cars on
importation either new or second-hand . Accordingly the tax
is not levied on second-hand Greek cars .                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by orders of the Pretura
                                                                       Circondariali di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
The tax is levied on imported second-hand cars on the basis
of their presumed value , which is calculated by means of a            ( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of 15
reduction from the price of equivalent new cars of 5 % for             and 22 November 1995 , which were received at the Court
each year of use , up to a maximum of 20% . In the                     Registry on 4 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
Commission 's view, since                                              criminal proceedings against Tersilio Onorati and Palma
                                                                       Marulli
( a ) the actual reduced value of the cars exceeds 5 % per
        annum ;
                                                                       The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                       Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case
( b ) that reduction is not linear, but greater in the first years     C-58/95 ( M.
        and less subsequently;
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
( c ) there is no provision for a reduction greater than
        20% ,
those rules result in higher taxation of imported cars,
because the residual ( incorporated ) portion of the tax in the
value of second-hand cars manufactured in Greece is less
than the amount of the tax levied on imported second-hand              Appeal brought on 27 November 1995 by the French
cars .
                                                                       Republic against the judgment delivered on 18 September
                                                                       1995 by the First Chamber ( enlarged composition ) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Accordingly this amounts to a breach of the first paragraph            Case T-548/93 ( ] ) between Ladbroke Racing Ltd and the
of Article 95 of the Treaty .                                          Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                                the French Republic
B.      Flat-rate added special duty                                                         ( Case C-379/95 P)
                                                                                96/C 31 /24
The method of calculating this duty is the same as that used
in calculating the special consumption tax. Consequently
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September
the same comments as above apply by analogy.
                                                                        1995 by the First Chamber ( enlarged composition ) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
C. Special consumption tax on anti-pollutant cars                      Case T-548/93 between Ladbroke Racing Ltd and the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities was brought
By successive laws the Hellenic Republic has reduced in                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
recent years the special consumption tax levied on new cars            27 November 1995 by the French Republic, represented by
with the latest technology ( anti-pollutant cars ). Since no           Jean-Marc Belorgey, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Francois


title: Case T-529/13: Action brought on 27 September 2013 — Izsák and Dabis v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/21

         Action brought on 27 September 2013 — Izsák and Dabis v European Commission
   (Case T-529/13)
   2014/C 24/38
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicants: Balázs-Árpád Izsák (Marosvásárhely, Romania) and Attila Dabis (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Dr J. Petneházy Tordáné, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4975 of 25 July 2013 rejecting the application for registration of the European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and the preservation of regional cultures’.

               —

               Order the Commission to register the initiative and adopt any other measure required by law.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea(s) in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 (1)

                           —

                           By the first plea the applicants state that their citizens’ initiative fulfils all the requirements for registration. Furthermore, they reject as unfounded the Commission’s allegation that the proposed citizens’ initiative manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. According to the applicants, the initiative put forward a proposal which fell within the powers defined by Article 4(2)(c) TFEU (economic, social and territorial cohesion).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU

                           —

                           Under this plea, the applicants allege that, contrary to the Commission’s contention, the list in the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU of disadvantages by virtue of which particular attention is to be paid to a region is not exhaustive but given by way of example.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 174 TFEU and of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 (2)

                           —

                           The applicants consider, moreover, that regions which have particular national, linguistic and cultural characteristics belong in any event to the category of ‘regions concerned’ indicated in Article 174 TFEU to which the European Union’s policy on cohesion is applicable, given that, under the secondary legislation of the European Union, culture is an important factor in territorial, social and economic cohesion. In their opinion, this is borne out by Article 3(5) and the tenth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1059/2003.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 211/2011 and of Article 167 TFEU

                           —

                           The applicants argue that the promoters of the initiative are not obliged to indicate the legal basis of the legislative initiative, as the Commission states, but, under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 211/2011, they have to indicate the provisions of the Treaty which, in the opinion of the organisers, relate to the proposed action. Moreover, under Article 167 TFEU, the European Union is to contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 19(1) TFEU

                           —

                           According to the applicants, the Commission asserts without justification in the contested decision that, although the European Union institutions are obliged to respect cultural and linguistic diversity and not to discriminate against minorities, those provisions do not constitute a legal basis for any action on the part of the institutions. The applicants object, in particular, that the Commission’s assertion is contrary to Article 19(1) TFEU.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 174 TFEU

                           —

                           According to the applicants, the Commission misinterprets the initiative in stating that the boost to the situation of national minorities cannot be seen as helping to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 174 TFEU. The applicants allege that the promoters of the initiative were not seeking to improve the situation of national minorities but to ensure that the cohesion policy of the European Union could not be used to eliminate or weaken the national linguistic and cultural characteristics of those regions, and that that the economic resources and objectives of the European Union could not be converted into instruments, however indirect, of policies against minorities.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ 2003 L 154, p. 1).


title: Case C-315/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 29 June 2012 — Metro Cash & Carry Danmark ApS v Skatteministeriet

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 29 June 2012 — Metro Cash & Carry Danmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-315/12)
   2012/C 258/20
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Metro Cash & Carry Danmark ApS

      Respondent: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Directive 92/12 (1) and Regulation No 3649/92 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a trader in a Member State who, in circumstances such as those arising in the main proceedings, sells goods subject to excise duty which have been released for consumption in that Member State and which are supplied at the vendor’s place of business to a purchaser who is resident in another Member State, without the vendor assisting in the provision or arrangement of transport, must carry out (i) a check to determine whether the purchase of the goods which are subject to duty is made with a view to their importation into that second Member State and (ii) a check to determine whether the goods are to be imported for private or commercial use?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must the trader, at the time of the sale of goods subject to excise duty in circumstances such as those arising in the main proceedings, when carrying out the checks referred to, apply rules of presumption as to the purchaser’s intention with regard to the goods purchased?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, are Directive 92/12 and Regulation No 3649/92 to be interpreted as meaning that a vendor, as referred to in Question 1, in circumstances such as those arising in the main proceedings, must refuse to accede to a purchaser’s wish to purchase goods subject to excise duty if the purchaser does not offer to present copy 1 of the simplified accompanying document referred to in Article 4 of Regulation No 3649/92, if the intention in making the purchase is to use the dutiable goods for commercial purposes in the purchaser’s home country? An answer to this question is also requested in the event that rules of presumption, as referred to in Question 2, are to be applied.

               4.

               Do the entry into force of Directive 2008/118 (3) and the repeal of Directive 92/12 give rise to a change in the legal position as regards the implications of Directive 92/12 in relation to the answers to Questions 1 to 3?

               5.

               Is the phrase ‘products acquired by private individuals for their own use’ in Article 8 of Directive 92/12 (see Article 32(1) of Directive 2008/118) to be interpreted as meaning that it covers, or can cover, purchases of goods subject to excise duty in circumstances such as those arising in the main proceedings? If the answer to that question is in the negative, must the purchases then come under Article 7 of Directive 92/12 and/or Article 33 of Directive 2008/118?

      (1)  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).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92 of 17 December 1992 on a simplified accompanying document for the intra-Community movement of products subject to excise duty which have been released for consumption in the Member State of dispatch (OJ 1992 L 369, p. 17).

      (3)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).


title: Case C-80/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 10 February 2000 in the case of Italian Leather SpA against WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co.

text:
C 149/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.5.2000
By issuing to those taxpayers five-year or ten-year Government         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
bonds, the Italian State has gone far beyond the facultative           Heidelberg by order of that court of 3 March 2000 in the
power conferred on Member States by Article 18(4) of the                      business register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH
Sixth Directive, which allows the difference between tax
deducted and tax due to be carried forward, but only to the
following tax period. To carry the excess further forward                                        (Case C-86/00)
entails infringement of the rule clearly laid down by Article
18(4), frustrating that provision and ultimately constituting a                                 (2000/C 149/38)
serious contravention of the basic principle underlying the
common system of value added tax, namely, the right to
immediate exercise of the right to a refund.                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht, Heidel-
                                                                       berg (Local Court, Heidelberg), received at the Court Registry
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the business
                                                                       register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH on the following
                                                                       questions:
                                                                       A. Does the transfer to Spain of the registered office of a
                                                                           company properly constituted under German law, regis-
                                                                           tered in the German register, and whose sole shareholder
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-                        is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its legal person-
richtshof by order of that court of 10 February 2000 in the                ality, fall within the rights set out in Articles 43 and 48 of
case of Italian Leather SpA against WECO Polstermöbel                      the EC Treaty (formerly Articles 52 and 58 EC)?
                          GmbH & Co.
                                                                       B. Do Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty (previously Articles
                         (Case C-80/00)                                    52 and 58 EC) preclude a national rule prohibiting the
                                                                           transfer to Spain of the registered office of a limited
                        (2000/C 149/37)                                    liability company properly constituted under German
                                                                           law, registered on the German register, and whose sole
                                                                           shareholder is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     legal personality?
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice, Germany) of 10 February 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Italian Leather SpA v
WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. on the following questions
concerning the interpretation of the EC Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Convention’)
(OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32):
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                       di Genova by order of that court of 28 February 2000 in
1. Can judgments be irreconcilable within the meaning of
                                                                                the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana SpA
    Article 27(3) of the Convention when the only difference
    between them lies in the specific requirements for the
    adoption of a particular type of autonomous provisional                                      (Case C-87/00)
    measure (within the meaning of Article 24 of the Conven-
    tion)?
                                                                                (2000/C 149/39)
2. May and must the court of the enforcing State which has
    declared a foreign judgment requiring the debtor to desist         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    from certain activities to be enforceable in accordance with       European Communities by an order of the Giudice di Pace di
    Articles 34(1) and 31(1) of the Convention at the same             Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) of 28 February 2000,
    time order the measures necessary under the law of the             which was received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000,
    enforcing State for enforcement of a restraining order?            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana
                                                                       SpA, on the following questions:
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the
    measures necessary under the law of the enforcing State
    for enforcement of the restraining order be ordered even if        1. Are Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 (1) of 26 June 1998 and
    the judgment to be recognised does not itself include                  Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 (2) 26 June 1998 valid, in
    comparable measures in accordance with the law of the                  view of the fact in that, as a result of belatedly fixing for
    State of judgment, and that law makes no provision at all              the 1998-99 marketing year certain prices applicable to
    for the immediate enforceability of such restraining orders?           the sugar sector, they belatedly determine the intervention
                                                                           prices to be observed on the Italian market, in breach of
                                                                           Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic regulation, Regulation
                                                                           No 1785/81 (3)?


title: Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Peter Dethlefs and 38 other applicants against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-112/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/29
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 25 April 1995 by Benjamin Laurence Lay,               Communities on 25 April 1 995 by Donald George Gage and
represented by Richard Gordon QC and Joanne Keddie,                  David John Gage, represented by Richard Gordon QC and
Solicitor, Dawson & Co, 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn,                 Joanne Keddie, Solicitor, Dawson & Co, 2 New Square,
London WC2A 3RZ, England .                                           Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ, England .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         The applicants claim that the Court should :
— declare that the decision of the Council and/or the
                                                                     — declare that the decision of the Council and/or the
     Commission of 13 February 1995 declining
     non-contractual liability in respect of the application by          Commission of 13 February 1995 declining
     the applicant for measures providing compensation for               non-contractual liability in respect of the application by
     himself, and the group of SLOM 3 producers, is null                 the applicants for measures providing compensation for
     and/or void and of no effect and/or annul the said                  them, and the group of SLOM 3 producers, is null and/or
     decision;                                                           void and of no effect and/or annul the said decision;
— declare that the Council and/or the Commission have                — declare that the Council and/or the Commission have
     failed to implement a Regulation or take such other                 failed to implement a Regulation or take such other
     measures to introduce compensation for the applicant                measures to introduce compensation for the applicants
     and the group of SLOM 3 producers;                                  and the group of SLOM 3 producers;
— order that the costs of these proceedings be borne by the          — order that the costs of these proceedings be borne by the
     defendants .                                                        defendants .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a SLOM 3 dairy producer, complains that no
arrangements have been made by the Community                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
institutions to make available for this category of milk             raised in Case T-107/95 .
producers compensation measures similar to those
introduced for SLOM 1 and 2 producers pursuant to
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 .
According to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 , producers
who were allocated a special reference quantity under
Article 3a, pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 , are
excluded from claiming compensation in relation to their             Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Peter Dethlefs and 38
allocation of SLOM 3 quota .                                         other applicants against the Council of the European Union
                                                                         and the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant submits that this exclusion of the group of                                   ( Case T-l 12/95 )
SLOM 3 producers represents a serious violation of a                                           95/C 208/63 )
legitimate expectation of compensation for the period from
the end of his non-marketing scheme to the date on which he
received an allocation of SLOM 3 quota . Such a failure to                          (Language of the case: German)
provide for compensation is contrary to the principles of
Community law of respect for property and of
non-discrimination between equivalent producers.                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 8 May 1995 by Peter Dethlefs and 38 other
                                                                     applicants , of Groven, Federal Republic of Germany . The
                                                                     applicants are represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild
                                                                     Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schultze and Dr
Action brought on 25 April 1995 by Donald George Gage                Winfried Flaneklaus , of Münster ( Federal Republic of
and David John Gage against the Council of the European              Germany), whose address for service in Luxembourg is at
Union and the Commission of the European                             the Chambers of Dupong & Associates, 14a Rue des
                          Communities                                Bains .
                       ( Case T-108/95 )
                         ( 95/C 208/62
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
                (Language of the case: English)                      — order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                          applicants in respect of the period between the expiry of
An action against the Council of the European Union and                   the two-month period for acceptance contained in
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    Article 14 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/30          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 8 . 95
    22 July 1993 and 3 August 1994 ( or, in the case of three       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    of the applicants, 29 June 1994 ) interest amounting to
    8 % of the amount of compensation paid to them in
    addition to 8 % thereon from delivery of the                    In connection with its investigation of European cement
    judgment,                                                       producers ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), the
                                                                    Commission asked Cementir to produce figures for its
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings           invoicing of grey cement and clinker for 1992 and 1993 . In
    and in particular the lawyers' costs .                          compliance with that request, Cementir communicated to
                                                                    the Commission figures which erroneously included
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 amounts relating to supplies of goods and services that were
                                                                    completely different from sales of grey cement and clinker.
                                                                    Cementir became aware of the error only on examining the
The applicant producers, who accepted the compensation              Decision which concluded that investigation ( Commission
offered to them by the competent German authority within            Decision No 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 ), whereupon
the two-month period under Article 14 of Council                    it informed the Commission that the invoicing figures
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 providing for an offer of             previously supplied were too high by reason of an
compensation to certain producers of milk and milk                  accounting error . At the same time, the company attached
products temporarily prevented from carrying on their               an accountants' certificate identifying and quantifying the
trade, are claiming compensation for the damage suffered by         amounts erroneously added to the cement invoices and
them on the ground that the interest on delayed payment             determining the exact invoicing figure which the
provided for in Article 12 of that Regulation in the amount         Commission should have used in calculating the fine
of 8 % of the amount of compensation was not paid for the           imposed on Cementir .
whole of the period in respect of which they were entitled .
The Commission substantiated its refusal to pay the interest
claimed by the fact that the applicants were too late in
withdrawing their proceedings for compensation brought              By letter from the Director-General for Competition of
before the Court in 1990 .                                          2 March 1995 , the Commission rejected that request for
                                                                    rectification . That decision of rejection        forms the
The applicants take the view that the payment of the interest       subject-matter of the present action .
at issue cannot depend on the date of withdrawal of
proceedings, which is merely a formal step, since no such
condition is contained in Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 .           Cementir argues that the decision should be annulled for the
                                                                    following reasons :
                                                                    — In its decision, the Commission took into consideration,
                                                                        for the calculation of the fine imposed on Cementir,
                                                                        invoicing which was erroneous because it included
Action brought on 10 May 1995 by Societa Cementerie del                 amounts that had nothing to do with sales of grey
Tirreno SpA against the Commission of the European                      cement and clinker, the subject-matter of the dispute .
                         Communities                                    The Commission 's assertions in its letter of 2 March
                      ( Case T-l 16/95 )                                1995 , implicitly acknowledging the error in calculation
                                                                        but attempting to dispute its relevance for the purposes
                        ( 95/C 208/64 )                                 of determining the fine and thus for the request for
                                                                        rectification, appear to be unfounded and irrelevant.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    — The Commission 's refusal to amend the amount of the
An action against the Commission of the European                        fine on the basis of the corrected invoicing figures,
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                      which, moreover, the Commission has not disputed,
Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 1995 by                  seriously penalizes Cementir without justification. In the
 Societa Cementerie del Tirreno SpA ('Cementir'), having its            event, the fine has been calculated on the basis of
registered office in Rome, represented by Gian Michele                  erroneous figures and is thus disproportionate; it has
 Roberti and Antonio Tizzano, both of the Naples Bar, with              also been calculated on        a different    and    more
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                unfavourable basis than         that used      for   other
 Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert l cr.                                      undertakings which merely communicated the figures
                                                                        for grey cement sales, thereby breaching the principle of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            equality of treatment.
— annul the decision of rejection contained in the
     Commission's letter of 2 March 1995 , and
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case T-776/14: Action brought on 24 November 2014  — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/55

         Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2)
   (Case T-776/14)
   (2015/C 046/71)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: the applicant

      Trade mark at issue: the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘ABTRONICX2’ — Application No 8 534 943

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 2078/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-570/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)
   (Case T-570/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 124/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 November 2003 in Case C-243/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno): Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others (Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Collection of bets on sporting events in one Member State and transmission by internet to another Member State — Prohibition enforced by criminal penalties — Legislation in a Member State which reserves the right to collect bets to certain bodies)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 7/7
      the product that it designates is accorded protection in the           ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against
      importing Member State, whether or not there is any risk of            Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others on the interpretation of
      consumers being misled, and the import of a product lawfully           Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
      marketed in another Member State may be prevented.                     President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and J.N. Cunha
                                                                             Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
3.    The first paragraph of Article 307 EC is to be interpreted as          teur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr,
      permitting a court of a Member State, subject to the findings to       Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
      be made by that court having regard inter alia to the criteria set     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      out in this judgment, to apply the provisions of bilateral             6 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
      agreements such as those at issue in the main proceedings,
      concluded between that State and a non-member country and
      according protection to a name from the non-member country,            National legislation which prohibits on pain of criminal penalties the
      even where those provisions prove to be contrary to the EC             pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding
      Treaty rules, on the ground that they concern an obligation            offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence
      resulting from agreements concluded before the date of the             or authorisation from the Member State concerned constitutes a
      accession of the Member State concerned to the European                restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
      Union. Pending the success of one of the methods referred to in        services provided for in Articles 43 and 49 EC respectively. It is for
      the second paragraph of Article 307 EC in eliminating any              the national court to determine whether such legislation, taking
      incompatibilities between an agreement predating that accession        account of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the
      and the Treaty, the first paragraph of that article permits that       aims which might justify it, and whether the restrictions it imposes
      State to continue to apply such an agreement in so far as it           are disproportionate in the light of those objectives.
      contains obligations which remain binding on that State under
      international law.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 6 November 2003                                                            of 25 November 2003
in Case C-243/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-278/01: Commission of the European Communi-
the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno): Piergiorgio Gambelli and                                         ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                              Others (1)
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment
(Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services —                      of the Court establishing such failure — Non-compliance —
Collection of bets on sporting events in one Member State                    Article 228 EC — Financial penalties — Penalty payment
and transmission by internet to another Member State —                           — Quality of bathing water — Directive 76/160/EEC)
Prohibition enforced by criminal penalties — Legislation in
a Member State which reserves the right to collect bets to
                           certain bodies)                                                                (2004/C 7/11)
                           (2004/C 7/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-278/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-243/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz
by the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno (Italy) for a preliminary                  Vaamonde): Application, first, for a declaration that, by not


title: Case T-428/03: Action brought on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard Keinhorst against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/36                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
The applicants finally claim that the Commission has violated                 The applicant submits that the reasoning for the contested
fundamental principles of Community law, such as the prin-                    decision is unsound and that that decision infringes the general
ciple of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, the prin-               principle of sound administration that reasons must be stated
ciple of independence and excellence of scientific advice, the                for decisions. The applicant also alleges infringement of
principle of proportionality, the principle of equal treatment                Article 5 of Appendix 2 to the Staff Regulations of Europol (1)
and the principle of sound administration. The applicants also                and infringement of the principle of due care.
claim that there was a lack of competence on the part of the
Commission and that the Commission misused its powers.
                                                                              (1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations
                                                                                applicable to Europol employees (OJ 1999 C 26, p. 7).
(1) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approxi-
    mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
    to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-
    stances (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967, p. 234).
                                                                              Action brought on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard Kein-
                                                                              horst against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia                                                 (Case T-428/03)
                        Smit against Europol
                                                                                (2004/C 47/69)
                           (Case T-423/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            (2004/C 47/68)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard
                                                                              Keinhorst, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
                                                                              Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                     bourg.
First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis
and M.F. Baltussen.                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
                                                                                applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
1.    annul the implicit rejection by Europol of her objection                      him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
      to the decision of 19 May 2003 and, at the same time,
      annul the decision of 19 May 2003;                                      —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
                                                                                14 April 2003, in so far as it:
2.    order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
      ing, in any event, the costs of the present proceedings.                      —    did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,
                                                                                Step 3 upon recruitment,
                                                                                —    did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
                                                                                by bringing forward the date of his promotion to A5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                          and, if appropriate, promoting him to A4,
                                                                                —    limited the date on which the reclassification
The applicant’s application for the post of ‘Asset Administrator’                        decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
with Europol was rejected by the contested decision.                                     to 5 October 1995;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 47/37
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated             Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Iosif Dascalu
      4 September 2003, notified to the applicant on 11 Sep-             against the Commission of the European Communities
      tember 2003, rejecting his complaint R/173/03;
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated                                      (Case T-430/03)
      24 November 2003, notified to the applicant on
      10 December 2003, rejecting his complaint R/438/03;
                                                                                (2004/C 47/70)
—     Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
      ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
      possibility, it should not be able to reconstruct the
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      applicant’s career in grade;
—     Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
      ings.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 21 December 2003 by Iosif
                                                                       Dascalu, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                       bourg.
Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the classification
of officials who used remedies within the meaning of Article 91
of the Staff Regulations. Following that exercise, the Com-            —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
mission adopted the contested decision in respect of the appt.              23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
                                                                            applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
                                                                            him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
In support of his action, the applicant claims, as regards
additional seniority, that there has been a breach of the              —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
Commission decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983                    14 April 2003, in so far as it:
on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to
classification in step on recruitment, a breach of Article 5(3)
of the Staff Regulations, a breach of the principle of equal                —     did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,
treatment and, last, a breach of Article 25(2) of the Staff                       Step 3 upon recruitment;
Regulations and of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                            —     did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
                                                                                by bringing forward the date of his promotions
The applicant further claims that the contested decision                          to A5 and A4;
breaches the principle that an official should have reasonable
career prospects and Article 5(3) and Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations in that the decision does not reconstruct his career            —     limited the date on which the reclassification
in grade.                                                                         decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
                                                                                to 5 October 1995.
Last, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of             —    Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
Article 62 of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission                  ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
limited the pecuniary effects of the contested decision to                  possibility, it should not be able to reconstruct the
5 October 1995.                                                             applicant’s career in grade;
                                                                       —    Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
                                                                            ings.


title: Case T-273/04: Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Brandt Industries against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/23

         Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Brandt Industries against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-273/04)
   (2004/C 251/42)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 July 2004 by Brandt Industries, established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), represented by Niels Dejean and Christophe Delrieu, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty on the grounds that it does not state adequate reasons as required under Article 253 EC and that it is contrary to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) of 22 March 1999;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the decision of 16 December 2003 the Commission concluded that the scheme provided for in Article 44 septies of the Code Général des Impôts (French General Taxation Code) constituted a State aid incompatible with the common market, without prejudice to de minimis aid and aid compatible with the guidelines on aid for regional purposes or with the exemption rule regarding aid to small and medium-sized undertakings. It ordered France to recover the aid granted.
   The applicant contests the Commission decision. It submits that the decision should be annulled on the ground that the decision does not show adequate reasons in light of the requirements of Article 253 EC. In the decision, the Commission itself recognised that it had no specific information on the firms which automatically benefited from the scheme under Article 44 septies of the Code Général des Impôts.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the contested decision is in breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The Commission did not take account of the fact that the tax aid to companies formed to take over firms in difficulty had the effect of bringing those companies to propose a higher price for the assets than that which they would have offered if that aid had not existed. Consequently, all or part of the aid was transferred, by way of an increase in the repurchase price of those assets, to the creditors of the firm in receivership, so that the takeover companies could not be regarded as the actual beneficiaries of the entirety of the aid. Reimbursement of the aid received by the takeover companies is not a measure necessary for the return of the competition situation to what it was before the grant of the aid, but, on the contrary, would place the takeover companies in a less favourable position than that in which they would have been without the aid, so that it contravenes the principles of fair competition and of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-3/03: Action brought on 7 January 2003 by Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 55/38               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           8.3.2003
Action brought on 7 January 2003 by Everlast World’s                     Pleas in law:                  —    There are no absolute
Boxing Headquarters Corporation against the Office for                                                       grounds for refusal to regis-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                                        ter the mark within the
                            Designs)                                                                         meaning of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                and (b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 ( 1).
                          (Case T-3/03)
                                                                                —    The trade mark has become
                         (2003/C 55/92)                                                                      distinctive in relation to the
                                                                                goods or services for which
                                                                                registration is requested in
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                             consequence of the use
                                                                                which has been made of it,
                                                                                in       accordance       with
                                                                                Article 7(3) of Regulation
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               (EC) No 40/94.
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
7 January 2003 by Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters
Corporation, New York, represented by A. Barth, Rechtsan-                (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
wältin.                                                                       Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of
      Decision R 391/2001-1 of the First Board of Appeal of
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
      30 October 2002;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 8 January 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-4/03)
Trade mark for which          The word mark ‘Choice of Cham-
Community registration        pions’        —         Application
sought:                       No 1508498                                                           (2003/C 55/93)
Goods or services:            Goods of Classes 18, 25 and 28
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Decision       challenged     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:
Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the examiner’s
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Appeal:                       decision in respect of ‘Leather and
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                              imitations of leather and goods            European Communities on 8 January 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef,
                              made from these materials’ so far
                                                                         residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by
                              as contained in Class 18; ‘animal          G. Bounéou, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                              skins and hides’, ‘trunks and trav-
                              elling bags; umbrellas, parasols
                              and walking sticks’ and ‘Play-
                              things; decorations for Christmas          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              trees’. Dismissal of the complaint
                              in respect of ‘whips, harness and
                              saddlery’, ‘Clothing, footwear,            —     annul the decision of Appointing Authority of the
                              headgear’ and ‘Games; gymnastic                  Commission of the European Communities of 21 Decem-
                              and sporting articles’ so far as                 ber 2001 not to include the applicant’s name in the list
                              contained in Class 28, and dis-                  of most deserving officials and not to promote him to
                              missal of the application for dis-               grade B1 in the promotion exercise for 2001 (decision
                              tinctive force as a result of use in             adopted following reconsideration of the applicant’s file
                              respect of those goods.                          during the 2001 promotion exercise);


title: Case C-475/01: Action brought on 6 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 68/4                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.3.2002
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                                 at the relevant date and, if not, whether the difference is
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                               perceptible, rendering it apt to confer distinctive character
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                           on the Marks;
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-128/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                   —     in failing to assess whether the specific pattern (speckles
                                                                               and square or triangular inlays in the centre and on the
                  Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                               upper surface of the tablet) was already part of the usual
                                                                               get-ups of the tablets on the market at the relevant date
                        (Case C-473/01 P)                                      and, if not, whether the difference is perceptible, rendering
                                                                               it apt to confer distinctive character on the Marks.
                          (2002/C 68/08)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 25.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in case T-128/00 between
Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.              Action brought on 6 December 2001 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-475/01)
—     annul the judgment; insofar as the remainder of the
      action was dismissed;
                                                                                (2002/C 68/09)
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
      and on appeal.
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 Decem-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Maria Kondou-Durande and Enrico Traversa,
                                                                         Legal Advisers.
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
the following respects:
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     in deeming it unnecessary to decide whether the distinc-
      tive character of the Mark should be assessed by reference
      to the date on which the application for registration is           —     declare that, by maintaining in force excise duty on ouzo
      filed or the date of actual registration;                                at a lower rate than that applied to other alcoholic
                                                                               beverages, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
—     in holding that the level of attention given by the average              obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 of the
      consumer to the shape and colours of washing machine                     EC Treaty;
      and dishwasher tablets is not high;
                                                                         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     in deeming it appropriate to ascertain whether the Marks
      applied for will enable the members of the public targeted
      to distinguish the products from those having a different
      trade origin when they come to select a product for
      purchase;                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     in holding that the bevelled edges, slightly rounded
      corners or chamfered edges of the tablets are not likely to        Law No 2127/93 transposes Directive 92/83/EEC (1) into
      be perceived by the average consumer as a distinctive              Greek law. That Law sets the basic rate of excise duty at GRD
      feature of the shape claimed, capable of distinguishing it         per 100 litres of pure alcohol. However, Article 26 of the Law
      from other washing machine or dishwasher tablets and               provides for a 50 % reduction in the basic rate with regard to
      in failing to assess whether such features were already            ouzo. Thus, for that particular product the excise duty amounts
      part of the usual get up(s) of thetablets on the market            to only GRD per 100 litres of pure alcohol.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.3.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 68/5
The Commission concludes that the spirit and purpose of                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Directive 92/83 do not allow the Member States to adopt                 Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia by order of
measures which result in discrimination against similar prod-           10 October 2001 in the case of Anna Fascicolo and Others
ucts imported from other Member States and that, in any                 against Regione Puglia and of Grazia Berardi and Others
event, Article 23(2) of Directive 92/83 cannot under any                 against Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/4 and Others
circumstances justify an infringement of Article 90 EC.
That provision of the directive, which does not require, but                              (Cases C-10/02 and C-11/02)
allows, a reduced rate to be applied to the product in question,
charges the Member State with the responsibility for examining
whether, on the basis of the particular circumstances of the
market, the difference in taxation gives rise to protection of a                                 (2002/C 68/11)
domestic product and discrimination against imported prod-
ucts, in which case it must refrain from applying the reduced
rate.
A system of taxation can be considered compatible with the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
first paragraph of Article 90 EC only if it is arranged in such a       European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
way that it in any event precludes a higher charge being                tivo Regionale per la Puglia (Regional Administrative Court,
imposed on imported products than on domestic products.                 Puglia) of 10 October 2001, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        15 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anna
                                                                        Fascicolo and Others against Regione Puglia and of Grazia
(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
                                                                        Berardi and Others against Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale
                                                                        BA/4 and Otheres on the questions
                                                                        1.   whether, under Article 7(2) of Directive 86/457/EEC (1)
                                                                             and Article 36(2) of Directive 93/16/EEC (2), for the
                                                                             purpose of the exercise of general medical practice a right
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                       to practise acquired on or before 31 December 1994 is
gericht Mainz by order of 10 December 2001 in the case                       to be regarded as equivalent to the certificate of specific
of Emil Färber GmbH & Co. KG against Landkreis                               training in general medical practice;
                         Alzey-Worms
                                                                        2.   whether, pursuant to the abovementioned Community
                         (Case C-2/02)                                       provisions, with effect from 1 January 1995 the award of
                                                                             a certificate of specific training in general medical practice
                        (2002/C 68/10)                                       allows Member States to grant to doctors who also have
                                                                             a right to practise acquired on or before 31 December
                                                                             1994 more favourable terms in the form of access to a
                                                                             wider range of reserved posts than that granted to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       holders of either one qualification or the other;
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Mainz (Administrative Court, Mainz) of 10 December 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 7 January 2002, for a                 3.   if the previous question is answered in the affirmative,
preliminary ruling in the case of Emil Färber GmbH & Co. KG
against Landkreis Alzey-Worms on the following question:
                                                                             whether, finally, in view of the rules applicable to acquired
Is paragraph 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A to Directive                       rights, the abovementioned condition allows the Member
85/73/EEC (1), in the version set out in Directive 96/43/EC (2),             States to grant the abovementioned doctors further
to be interpreted as meaning that the standard fee governed by               special treatment by in all cases granting them additional
that paragraph covering controls and inspections connected                   points for obtaining the certificate of specific training in
with cutting operations is payable only in respect of meat that              general medical practice.
is actually cut at a cutting plant, or is it to be interpreted as
meaning that such fee is payable in respect of all meat entering
the cutting plant, whether it is cut or not?
                                                                        (1) OJ L 267, 19.9.1986, p. 26.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 32, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 162, p. 1.


title: Case T-830/14: Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Farahat v Council

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/22

         Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Farahat v Council
   (Case T-830/14)
   (2015/C 096/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Farahat (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision (EU) No 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 (1) implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measure against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 (2) implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the Annex of the Decision and Regulation. The applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the Council alleges the applicant is Vice-president of Finance and Administration at Tri Ocean Energy and that in view of his position he is responsible for the activities of the entity in supplying oil to the regime,

                           —

                           there is no evidence to substantiate that allegation and none has been produced by the Council.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant's rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection given that the contested measures were adopted without including procedural safeguards to ensure that the applicant was given a full statement of reasons and a guarantee that he would be properly heard.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. The applicant states that the reason is insufficient to enable him to mount an effective challenge to the allegations made against him, or to enable a court to review the lawfulness of the contested decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The applicant considers that the Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, the Council made a manifest error of assessment in listing the applicant. The applicant contends that:

                           —

                           there is no information or evidence available to substantiate that Tri Ocean Energy has in fact provided support to the Syrian regime,

                           —

                           there is no information or evidence to suggest that merely by virtue of his role the applicant was responsible for the alleged actions of Tri Ocean Energy.

      (1)  Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014, L 301, p. 36).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014, L 301, p. 7).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 1999 in Case T-87/96: Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Unicredito SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Concentration - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Joint venture - Classification - Whether the decision finding that a joint venture forms part of wider cooperation is definitive or preliminary - Criteria for identifying a concentrative joint venture: functional independence and no co-ordination between the undertakings concerned - Right of the undertakings concerned to be heard - Statement of reasons)

text:
C 265/8               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.9.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 4 March 1999                                                               of 7 July 1999
                                                                          in Case T-89/96, British Steel plc v Commission of the
in Case T-87/96: Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Unicredi-                                     European Communities (1)
  to SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (ECSC — Action for annulment — Admissibility — State
(Concentration — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Joint                      aid — Individual decision authorising State aid to a steel
venture — Classification — Whether the decision finding                   undertaking — Legal basis — Article 4(c) and Article 95,
that a joint venture forms part of wider cooperation is                   first paragraph, of the Treaty — Counterpart measures in
definitive or preliminary — Criteria for identifying a concen-            exchange for public funding — No capacity reduction
trative joint venture: functional independence and no co-                 required — Principle of non-discrimination — Infringement
ordination between the undertakings concerned — Right of                                of essential procedural requirements)
the undertakings concerned to be heard — Statement of
                             reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/14)
                        (1999/C 265/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        In Case T-89/96: British Steel plc, established in London,
                                                                          represented by William Sibree and Philip Raven, Solicitors,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
In Case T-87/96: Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Unicredito                Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich, supported by
SpA, whose registered offices are in Trieste and Treviso (Italy)          Hoogovens Staal BV. established at IJmuiden (Netherlands),
respectively, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo of the Trapani            represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar,
Bar, and Claudio Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, with an address              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang,                Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume v Commission of the
51 Rue Albert 1er v Commission of the European Communities                European Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan and Paul
(Agents: Richard Lyal and Fabiola Mascardi), supported by the             Nemitz), supported by Irish Ispat Ltd, established at Haulbow-
Italian Republic (Agents: Professor Umberto Leanza and Ivo                line, Cobh (Ireland), represented by Richard Martin, Solicitor,
M. Braguglia) — application for annulment of the Commission               and Jeremiah Healy SC and David Barniville, of the Irish Bar,
decision in case No IV/M. 711 — Generali/Unicredito of                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
25 March 1996 concerning a procedure in implementation of                 Zeyen, Beghin & Feider, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel, and Ireland
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989                   (Agents: Michael A. Buckley and Alex Schuster) — Application
on the control of concentrations between undertakings (recti-             for annulment of Commission Decision 96/315/ECSC of
fied version, OJ 1990 L 257, p. 14) — the Court of First                  7 February 1996 concerning aid to be granted by Ireland to
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of               the steel company Irish Steel (OJ 1996 L 121, p. 16) — the
B. Vesterdorf President, C.W. Bellamy, R.M. Moura Ramos,                  Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a            sition), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President and
judgment on 4 March 1999, the operative part of which is as               R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
follows:                                                                  A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgement
                                                                          on 7 July 1999, in which it:
1. The action is dismissed.
                                                                          1. Dismisses the action.
2. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                           2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs, those of the defendant
                                                                               and those of Irish Ispat Ltd, intervener.
3. The intervener shall bear its own costs.
                                                                          3. Orders Ireland and Hoogovens Staal BV, interveners, to bear
                                                                               their own costs.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.