do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-22/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2009 — US Steel Košice v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Act of Accession — Condition imposed on the beneficiary to limit its sales of flat products in the enlarged EU — Commission letter interpreting the condition as applying to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets from the date of their accession — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Slovakia, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, iron and steel product, ordinance, sale, trade restriction








C_2009167EN.01001002.xml










18.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/10





Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2009 — US Steel Košice v Commission
(Case T-22/07) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Act of Accession - Condition imposed on the beneficiary to limit its sales of flat products in the ‘enlarged EU’ - Commission letter interpreting the condition as applying to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets from the date of their accession - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)
2009/C 167/21
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: US Steel Košice s.r.o. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Vermulst and S. Van Cutsem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 22 November 2006, inasmuch as it interprets the condition imposed on the applicant to limit its sales of flat products in the ‘enlarged EU’ as applying also, from 1 January 2007, to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


US Steel Košice s.r.o. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.










3.


The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
Case C-435/08: Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, ordinance








C_2009220EN.01003003.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/30





Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
(Case C-435/08) (1)

2009/C 220/59

Language of the case: Polish

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


(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
Case C-175/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 14 May 2009 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Axa UK plc
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, banking, banking system, capital transfer, financial institution, interpretation of the law, payment, tax exemption








C_2009153EN.01003003.xml










4.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 153/30





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 14 May 2009 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Axa UK plc
(Case C-175/09)
2009/C 153/59
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Axa UK plc

Questions referred







1.


What are the characteristics of an exempt service that has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entail[s] changes in the legal and financial situation’?
In particular:






(a)


Is the exemption applicable to services which would not otherwise have to be performed by any of the financial institutions which (i) make a debit to one account, (ii) make a corresponding credit to another account, or (iii) perform an intervening task between (i) or (ii)?










(b)


Is the exemption applicable to services which do not include the carrying out of tasks of making a debit to one account and a corresponding credit to another account, but which may, where a transfer of funds results, be seen as having been the cause of that transfer?














2.


In the light of SDC, is a trader (which is not itself a bank) performing an exempt service in accordance with Article 13B(d)(3) where the tasks he carries out for his client (1) comprise the collection, processing and onward payment of monies due to the client from a third party; in particular, the tasks of:






(a)


transmitting information to the third party's bank calling for a payment from the third party's bank account to the trader's own bank account, in reliance on a standing authorisation given by that third party to the bank (pursuant to the ‘Direct Debit’
scheme); and subsequently, if the bank makes that payment,










(b)


giving an instruction to his own bank to transfer funds from his account to the client's bank account but (2) do not include tasks of (a) making a debit to one bank account, (b) making a corresponding credit to another bank account, or (c) performing any intervening task between (a) and (b)?














3.


Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 2 (above) if the service described in that question is performed by transmitting the information to an electronic system which then automatically communicates with the relevant bank, even if the transmission of the information may not always result in a transfer being made (e.g. because the third party has cancelled his standing authorisation to his bank or does not have sufficient funds in his account)?
Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, air transport, airline, civil aviation, disclosure of information, invitation to tender, regulation








C_2009110EN.01000301.xml










14.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/3





Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 110/03






Member State


Italy




Concerned route


Elba Marina di Campo—Firenze and vice versa





Period of validity of the contract


24 August 2009-23 August 2010




Deadline for submission of tenders


2 months after the date of publication of this notice




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the pubic tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







E.N.A.C. Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile




Direzione trasporto aereo




Viale del Castro Pretorio, n. 118




00185 Roma




ITALIA




www.enac-italia.it




e-mail: osp@enac.gov.it
Case T-184/09: Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, export refund, financial control, import, principle of proportionality, sugar








C_2009193EN.01002301.xml










15.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/23





Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
(Case T-184/09)
2009/C 193/37
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, E. Leftheriotou, V. Karra)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


grant the application and annul the contested decision or, in the alternative, alter it so that the financial correction is reduced to 5 % or, in the alternative, the correction of 10 % is applied only to the amount which corresponds to the sugar imported by E.V.Z.;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application for annulment of the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), which was notified under document number C(2009) 1945 and published under No 2099/253/EC (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15) and which concerns the imposition of corrections in respect of export refunds and the common organisation of the market in sugar, because of a lack of controls, the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following pleas for annulment.
By the first plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the procedure for clearance of the accounts was invalid because of breach of a substantial procedural requirement that is laid down by Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95, (1) relating to the failure to engage in bilateral discussion, so far as concerns the imposition of a correction for refunds in respect of sugar in non-Annex I products.
By the second plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic alleges misappraisal of the facts, an insufficient statement of reasons and that the limits of the Commission’s discretion were exceeded, as regards the assessment of risk for the Fund.
By the third plea for annulment, it alleges breach of the principle of proportionality.


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).
Case T-191/09: Action brought on 14 May 2009 — HIT Trading and Berkman Forwarding v Commission
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European Community, action for annulment (EU), customs, customs duties








C_2009180EN.01005302.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/53





Action brought on 14 May 2009 — HIT Trading and Berkman Forwarding v Commission
(Case T-191/09)
2009/C 180/99
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: HIT Trading BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) and Berkman Forwarding BV (Barendrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A.T.M. Jansen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


HIT Trading claims that the Court of First Instance should annul the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2009 in Case REC 08/01 and declare that the post-clearance recovery of customs duties and anti-dumping duties is to be waived since the remission of those duties is justified.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submit that the Commission wrongly decided that the post-clearance recovery of customs duties and anti-dumping duties was justified, and that the Commission was wrong to find that there was no special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
The applicants puts forward the following grounds in support of that submission:






—


The Commission finds that the Pakistan customs authorities made an active error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 as regards preferential origin. The Commission wrongly takes the view that, as regards non-preferential origin, this error is not an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92.










—


The Commission wrongly finds that the applicants were not careful in regard to the declarations lodged after 10 September 2004.










—


In its examination of the question whether post-clearance recovery may be waived or whether a special situation exists, the Commission has failed, without justification, to fulfil its obligations.










—


The Commission finds that the Pakistan customs authorities made an active error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 as regards preferential origin. The Commission wrongly takes the view that, as regards non-preferential origin, this error does not give rise to a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92.










—


It is not clear from the contested decision that the Commission genuinely weighed up the Community’s interest in compliance with customs regulations against the interests of importers, acting in good faith, in not being subject to disadvantage beyond the normal commercial risks.










—


It is not clear from the contested decision that the Commission took into account all the relevant facts in assessing whether the circumstances of the particular case give rise to a special situation.
Case C-174/09: Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, adoption of a law by vote, energy consumption, fine, new technology








C_2009167EN.01000601.xml










18.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/6





Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
(Case C-174/09)
2009/C 167/10
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and S. Schønberg, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for compliance with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2005/32/EC had to be transposed expired on 11 August 2007. Up to the date on which the action was brought, the defendant failed to introduce all of the provisions necessary for transposition of the directive, and in any event failed to inform the Commission thereof.


(1)  OJ 2005 L 191, p. 29.
Case T-165/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2009 — Fiorucci v OHIM — Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI) (Community trade mark — Invalidity and revocation proceedings — Community word mark ELIO FIORUCCI — Registration of the name of a well-known person as a trade mark — Article 52(2)(a) and Article 50(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing, cosmetic product, leather, trade-mark law








C_2009153EN.01003402.xml










4.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 153/34





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2009 — Fiorucci v OHIM — Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI)
(Case T-165/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity and revocation proceedings - Community word mark ELIO FIORUCCI - Registration of the name of a well-known person as a trade mark - Article 52(2)(a) and Article 50(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
2009/C 153/65
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Elio Fiorucci (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G. Sironi and F. Rossi, Lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Edwin Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: D. Rigatti, M. Bertani, S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, Lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2006 (Decision R 238/2005-1) concerning invalidity and revocation proceedings between Mr Elio Fiorucci and Edwin Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2006 (Case R 238/2005-1) in so far as it contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 8(3) of the Codice della Proprietà Industriale (Italian Industrial Property Code);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Elio Fiorucci;










4.


Orders Edwin Co. Ltd to pay its own costs and one third of those incurred by Mr Elio Fiorucci.






(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.
Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, air transport, airline, disclosure of information, regulation








C_2009110EN.01000302.xml










14.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/3





Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 110/04






Member State


Italy




Concerned route


Elba Marina di Campo—Pisa and vice versa





Period of validity of the contract


24 August 2009-23 August 2010




Deadline for submission of tenders


2 months after the date of publication of this notice




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the pubic tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







E.N.A.C. Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile




Direzione trasporto aereo




Viale del Castro Pretorio, n. 118




00185 Roma




ITALIA




www.enac-italia.it




e-mail: osp@enac.gov.it