do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-285/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2007 — Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, interpretation of the law, share, tax system

C 247/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

a

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2007 —
Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG v
Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften

ruling

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2007
— Firma Baumann GmbH v Land Hessen

(Case C-285/07)

(2007/C 247/02)

(Case C-309/07)

(2007/C 247/03)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Applicant: Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften

Applicant: Firma Baumann GmbH

Questions referred

1. Does Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC
of 23 July 1990 (1) preclude the taxation rules of a Member
State under which, on the transfer of shares in one European
Union company limited by shares to another, the transferring
party may maintain the book value of the shares transferred
only if
itself valued the
shares transferred at their book value (‘double book value
carryover’)?

receiving company has

the

2. If the answer is in the negative: are the above rules contrary
to Articles 43 EC and 56 EC, even though the ‘double book
value carryover’ is required also on a transfer of shares in a
company limited by shares to one that is subject to unlimited
taxation?

(1) OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1.

Defendant: Land Hessen

Questions referred

1. Is a national

legislature, when availing itself of the power
laid down in Article 5(3) of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of
29 January 1985 in the version of Council Directive
96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 and in point 4(a) of Chapter I of
Annex A thereto to increase the standard amounts of fees for
individual establishments and in point 4(b) to collect a fee
which covers actual costs, strictly bound by the fee structure
laid down in points 1 and 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A
(according to type of animal, young or adult animals, carcase
weight etc) or may it make a distinction, when setting the
amounts of scales of fees, between inspections of slaugh-
tering units in large establishments and other inspections
and, in addition, also within those two groups adjust the rate
of fees on a diminishing scale according to the number of
animals slaughtered within the animal types, provided only
that that reflects the actual costs?
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4825 — SFR/Somart/Débitel France) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, merger control, mobile phone, telecommunications

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/43

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4825 — SFR/Somart/Débitel France)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 246/11)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 20 September 2007, the Commission of the European Communities received notification of a proposed
concentration between SFR SA (France), Somart (France) and Débitel France. On 15 October 2007, the noti-
fying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4933 — Emerson Electric Co./Motorola ECC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 246/12)

1.
On 12 October 2007 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to
Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Emerson Electric Co. (‘Emerson’, US)
acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Motorola
ECC, the embedded computing division of Motorola Inc. (‘Motorola ECC’, US) by way of purchase of assets.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Emerson: design and supply of technology and engineering services,

including the provision of

embedded computing applications,

— for Motorola ECC: Design and provision of specialized computers which are built into and control large

and complex pieces of equipment (embedded computing applications).

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the

3.
scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed

4.
operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication.
Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under
reference number COMP/M.4933 — Emerson Electric Co./Motorola ECC, to the following address:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Competition
Merger Registry
J-70
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4933 — Emerson Electric Co./Motorola ECC) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, information technology industry, merger control, service, technology

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/43

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4825 — SFR/Somart/Débitel France)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 246/11)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 20 September 2007, the Commission of the European Communities received notification of a proposed
concentration between SFR SA (France), Somart (France) and Débitel France. On 15 October 2007, the noti-
fying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4933 — Emerson Electric Co./Motorola ECC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 246/12)

1.
On 12 October 2007 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to
Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Emerson Electric Co. (‘Emerson’, US)
acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Motorola
ECC, the embedded computing division of Motorola Inc. (‘Motorola ECC’, US) by way of purchase of assets.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Emerson: design and supply of technology and engineering services,

including the provision of

embedded computing applications,

— for Motorola ECC: Design and provision of specialized computers which are built into and control large

and complex pieces of equipment (embedded computing applications).

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the

3.
scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed

4.
operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication.
Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under
reference number COMP/M.4933 — Emerson Electric Co./Motorola ECC, to the following address:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Competition
Merger Registry
J-70
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-412/07: Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air safety, aircraft, civil aviation, national implementing measure, third country, transport safety

C 247/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive into
domestic law expired on 16 February 2006.

(1) OJ 2005 L 24, p. 33.

(Case C-417/07)

(2007/C 247/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Ireland

Form of order sought

(Case C-412/07)

(2007/C 247/26)

Language of the case: English

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/36/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft
using Community airports (1) or, in any event, by failing to
the
communicate those provisions to the Commission,
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under that directive;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: R. Vidal Puig, Agent, M. Petite, Agent)

period

The
prescribed
2004/36/CE expired on 30 April 2006.

for

transposition

of Directive

Defendant: Ireland

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/36/EC (1) of
the
Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country
aircraft using Community airports, or in any event by failing
to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed
to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

the European Parliament and of

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the
Court of 11 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) —
Belgacom Mobile SA v Institut belge des services postaux
et des télécommunications

(Case C-190/06) (1)

(2007/C 247/28)

Language of the case: French

The period within which the directives had to be transposed
expired on 30 April 2006.

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ L 143, p. 76.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4929 — Fiat/Ergom) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, construction equipment, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, metal product, motor vehicle industry, service, tourism, vehicle parts

C 246/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4929 — Fiat/Ergom)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 246/10)

1.
On 15 October 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant
to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Fiat Group Automobiles
S.p.A. (‘Fiat’, Italy) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the
whole of Ergom Holding S.p.A. (‘Ergom’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Fiat: manufacture and sale of automobiles, commercial vehicles, agricultural machinery, construction

equipment, automotive components and metallurgical products,

— for Ergom: manufacture and sale of plastic components for the automotive industry (bumpers, instru-

ment panels and fuel systems); air-transport and tourist services.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the

3.
scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed

4.
operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication.
Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under
reference number COMP/M.4929 — Fiat/Ergom, to the following address:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Competition
Merger Registry
J-70
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Joined Cases T-239/04 and T-323/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Italy and Brandt Italia v Commission (State aid — Legislation providing for urgent measures to assist employment for undertakings in difficulties — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and ordering recovery of aid paid)
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, employment aid

C 247/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September
2007 — Italy and Brandt Italia v Commission

Judgment

of

Instance
12 September 2007 — Combescot v Commission

Court

First

the

of

of

(Joined Cases T-239/04 and T-323/04) (1)

(Case T-249/04) (1)

(State aid — Legislation providing for urgent measures to
assist employment for undertakings in difficulties — Decision
declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common
market and ordering recovery of aid paid)

(Staff case — Officials — Mental harassment — Duty to
provide assistance — Career development report for the period
2001/2002 — Action for annulment — No legal interest in
bringing proceedings — Action for damages)

(2007/C 247/39)

Language of the case: Italian

(2007/C 247/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant
D. Del Gaizo, Agent)

in Case T-239/04:

Italian Republic (represented by:

Parties

in Case T-323/04: Brandt

Applicant
Italia SpA (Verolanuova,
Italy) (represented by: M. van Empel, C. Visco and S. Lamarca,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Di Bucci, C. Giolito and E. Righini, Agents)

Applicant: Philippe Combescot (Popayan, Colombia) (represented
by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Joris and M. Velardo, Agents and C. Corongui,
lawyer)

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March
2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing
for urgent measures to assist employment (OJ 2004 L 352,
p. 10).

First, declare that the conduct of the applicant's hierarchical
superiors is unlawful, declare that the applicant is entitled to
assistance and annul his career development report
for the
period from 1 July 2001 and 31 December 2002 and, secondly,
award damages
the loss
suffered.

to compensate the applicant

for

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those

incurred by the Commission in Case T-239/04;

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Brandt Italia SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those

incurred by the Commission in Case T-323/04.

2. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

(1) OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4742 — Oxbow/SSM) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coal, coal industry, coke, economic concentration, energy industry, fuel, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 246/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4742 — Oxbow/SSM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 246/02)

On 7 August 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare
it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is
cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This
website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case
number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4742. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).
Case C-190/06: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 11 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Belgacom Mobile SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: communications systems, interpretation of the law, mobile phone, provision of services, systems interconnection, technical standard, telecommunications, transmission network

C 247/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive into
domestic law expired on 16 February 2006.

(1) OJ 2005 L 24, p. 33.

(Case C-417/07)

(2007/C 247/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Ireland

Form of order sought

(Case C-412/07)

(2007/C 247/26)

Language of the case: English

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/36/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft
using Community airports (1) or, in any event, by failing to
the
communicate those provisions to the Commission,
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under that directive;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: R. Vidal Puig, Agent, M. Petite, Agent)

period

The
prescribed
2004/36/CE expired on 30 April 2006.

for

transposition

of Directive

Defendant: Ireland

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/36/EC (1) of
the
Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country
aircraft using Community airports, or in any event by failing
to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed
to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

the European Parliament and of

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the
Court of 11 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) —
Belgacom Mobile SA v Institut belge des services postaux
et des télécommunications

(Case C-190/06) (1)

(2007/C 247/28)

Language of the case: French

The period within which the directives had to be transposed
expired on 30 April 2006.

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ L 143, p. 76.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.
Affaire T-140/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Philips Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a packet of cigarettes) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a packet of cigarettes — Refusal of registration — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), tobacco industry, trade-mark law

C 247/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September
2007 — Philips Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a
packet of cigarettes)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007
— Glaverbel v OHIM (Texture of a glass surface)

(Affaire T-140/06) (1)

(Case T-141/06) (1)

(Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimen-
sional Community trade mark — Shape of a packet of cigar-
ettes — Refusal of registration — Absolute grounds for
refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 247/51)

Language of the case: French

(Community trade mark — Application for a Community
figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface —
Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of evidence of distinc-
tive character acquired through use)

(2007/C 247/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products, SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland)
(represented by: T. van Innis and C.S. Moreau, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Case R 0075/2005-4)
(OHIM), of 24 February 2006,
concerning registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as
a Community trade mark.

Parties

Applicant: Glaverbel SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S.
Möbus and T. Koerl, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2006 (Case R 0986/2004-4),
relating to an application for registration as a Community trade
mark of a figurative mark representing the texture of a glass
surface.

Operative part of the judgment

1) The action is dismissed;

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2) Philip Morris Products SA is ordered to pay the costs.

2. Orders Glaverbel SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.