# Official Journal C 354/26 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 354 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5826 October 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 354

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5826 October 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2015/C 354/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2015/C 354/02 | Assignment of Judges to Chambers | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2015/C 354/01

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

1

General Court

2015/C 354/02

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2015/C 354/03 | Case C-398/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 — Inuit Tapiriit and Others v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 737/2010 — Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Restrictions on the import and marketing of those products — Validity — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 17 — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — Article 19) | 4 |
| 2015/C 354/04 | Case C-526/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — Fast Bunkering Klaipėda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value Added Tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 148(a) — Supply of goods — Definition — Exemption — Supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas — Supplies to intermediaries acting in their own name) | 5 |
| 2015/C 354/05 | Case C-89/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate (Request for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Determination of the calculation of interest relating to the recovery of aid that is incompatible with the common market — Simple or compound interest — National legislation referring, for the calculation of interest, to Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Recovery decision notified before that regulation entered into force) | 5 |
| 2015/C 354/06 | Case C-110/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Horațiu Ovidiu Costea v SC Volksbank România SA (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 2(b) — Concept of consumer — Credit agreement concluded by a natural person who practises as a lawyer — Repayment of a loan secured on a building owned by the borrower’s law firm — Borrower who has the necessary knowledge to assess the unfairness of a term before signing the agreement) | 6 |
| 2015/C 354/07 | Case C-125/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Iron & Smith kft v Unilever NV (Request for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Registration of a national trade mark identical with, or similar to, an earlier Community trade mark — Community trade mark having a reputation in the European Union — Geographical extent of the reputation) | 7 |
| 2015/C 354/08 | Case C-127/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/19/EC — Point 7 of Annex I — Deposit-guarantee scheme — Exclusion of certain depositors from the deposit-guarantee scheme — Exclusion of a manager) | 7 |
| 2015/C 354/09 | Case C-309/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — National legislation — Issue and renewal of a residence permit — Condition — Obligatory financial contribution — Amount eight times higher than that for obtaining a national identity card — Infringement of the principles of Directive 2003/109/EC) | 8 |
| 2015/C 354/10 | Case C-321/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Colena AG v Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Scope — Non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs — Statement on the outer packaging describing the product in question as a cosmetic product — Consumer protection) | 9 |
| 2015/C 354/11 | Case C-383/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Sodiaal International (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3 — Recovery of Community aid — Administrative penalty — Administrative measures — Limitation period) | 9 |
| 2015/C 354/12 | Case C-386/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 4(2) — Cross-border distributions of dividends — Corporation tax — Group taxation (French intégration fiscale) — Tax exemption for dividends paid by subsidiaries belonging to the tax-integrated group — Residence qualification — Dividends paid by non-resident subsidiaries — Non-deductible costs and expenses relating to the holding) | 10 |
| 2015/C 354/13 | Case C-463/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) — Meaning of supply of services — Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services — Chargeable event — Need for proof of the actual supply of services — Chargeability of the tax) | 11 |
| 2015/C 354/14 | Case C-342/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 July 2015 — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer | 11 |
| 2015/C 354/15 | Case C-375/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 July 2015 — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation | 12 |
| 2015/C 354/16 | Case C-380/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Illes Balears (Spain) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Francisca Garzón Ramos and José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A., Intercotrans, S.L. | 13 |
| 2015/C 354/17 | Case C-382/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-183/13: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) | 14 |
| 2015/C 354/18 | Case C-383/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-423/12: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) | 15 |
| 2015/C 354/19 | Case C-384/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-184/13: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) | 16 |
| 2015/C 354/20 | Case C-387/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Hilde Orleans and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen | 18 |
| 2015/C 354/21 | Case C-388/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen | 19 |
| 2015/C 354/22 | Case C-395/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2015 — Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus S.L. | 19 |
| 2015/C 354/23 | Case C-398/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni | 20 |
| 2015/C 354/24 | Case C-431/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Liberbank S.A. v Rafael Piris del Campo | 21 |
| 2015/C 354/25 | Case C-433/15: Action brought on 6 August 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic | 22 |
| 2015/C 354/26 | Case C-443/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 August 2015 — Dr David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills | 24 |
| 2015/C 354/27 | Case C-445/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 17 August 2015 — The Queen on the application of Nutricia Limited v Secretary of State for Health | 25 |
| 2015/C 354/28 | Case C-458/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against K.B. | 27 |
| 2015/C 354/29 | Case C-468/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union | 27 |
| 2015/C 354/30 | Case C-257/15: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH | 28 |
| 2015/C 354/31 | Case C-299/15: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniele Striani, Mad Management SPRL, Franck Boucher and Others, RFC. Seresien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA) | 29 |
| | General Court |
| 2015/C 354/32 | Case T-30/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 30 |
| 2015/C 354/33 | Case T-77/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a grey background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a grey background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 30 |
| 2015/C 354/34 | Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer — Technical examination — Distinctiveness — Test guidelines — Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO) | 31 |
| 2015/C 354/35 | Case T-94/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a blue background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a blue background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 32 |
| 2015/C 354/36 | Case T-143/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a yellow background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a yellow background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 32 |
| 2015/C 354/37 | Case T-144/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on an ivory background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on an ivory background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 33 |
| 2015/C 354/38 | Case T-321/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark STREET — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 33 |
| 2015/C 354/39 | Case T-568/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 34 |
| 2015/C 354/40 | Case T-569/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 35 |
| 2015/C 354/41 | 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) | 35 |
| 2015/C 354/42 | Case T-571/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 36 |
| 2015/C 354/43 | Case T-572/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 36 |
| 2015/C 354/44 | Case T-608/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 37 |
| 2015/C 354/45 | Case T-609/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 38 |
| 2015/C 354/46 | Case T-610/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO organic) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO organic — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 38 |
| 2015/C 354/47 | Case T-441/13: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to respect for private life — Proportionality — Force of res judicata — Time-limit for bringing an action — Admissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 39 |
| 2015/C 354/48 | Case T-523/14: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2015 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — Correction of the decision concluding the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — No need to adjudicate) | 40 |
| 2015/C 354/49 | Case T-495/15: Action brought on 27 August 2015 — Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus v OHIM — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN) | 40 |
| 2015/C 354/50 | Case T-499/15: Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMILE) | 41 |
| 2015/C 354/51 | Case T-500/15: Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO) | 42 |
| 2015/C 354/52 | Case T-503/15: Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Aranynektár v OHIM — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal) | 43 |
| 2015/C 354/53 | Case T-504/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Rafhaelo Gutti v OHIM — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA) | 43 |
| 2015/C 354/54 | Case T-507/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Poland v Commission | 44 |
| 2015/C 354/55 | Case T-509/15: Action brought on 3 September 2015 — Kessel medintim v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Premeno) | 45 |
| 2015/C 354/56 | Case T-510/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Mengozzi v OHIM — Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano (TOSCORO) | 46 |
| 2015/C 354/57 | Case T-512/15: Action brought on 4 September 2015 — Sun Cali v OHIM — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI) | 47 |
| 2015/C 354/58 | Case T-513/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Map) | 48 |
| 2015/C 354/59 | Case T-516/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Types) | 48 |
| 2015/C 354/60 | Case T-517/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Sales) | 49 |
| 2015/C 354/61 | Case T-518/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — France v Commission | 50 |
| 2015/C 354/62 | Case T-520/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Filip Mikulik against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Mikulik v Council | 51 |
| 2015/C 354/63 | Case T-522/15: Action brought on 10 September 2015 — CCPL and Others v Commission | 52 |
| 2015/C 354/64 | Case T-523/15: Action brought on 10 September 2015 — Italmobiliare and Others v Commission | 53 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2015/C 354/65 | Case F-103/15: Action brought on 16 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 55 |
| 2015/C 354/66 | Case F-111/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 55 |
| 2015/C 354/67 | Case F-119/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol | 56 |
| 2015/C 354/68 | Case F-120/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol | 56 |
| 2015/C 354/69 | Case F-121/15: Action brought on 21 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 57 |
| 2015/C 354/70 | Case F-122/15: Action brought on 22 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 57 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 354/03

Case C-398/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 — Inuit Tapiriit and Others v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 737/2010 — Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Restrictions on the import and marketing of those products — Validity — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 17 — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — Article 19)

4

2015/C 354/04

Case C-526/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — Fast Bunkering Klaipėda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value Added Tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 148(a) — Supply of goods — Definition — Exemption — Supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas — Supplies to intermediaries acting in their own name)

5

2015/C 354/05

Case C-89/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate (Request for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Determination of the calculation of interest relating to the recovery of aid that is incompatible with the common market — Simple or compound interest — National legislation referring, for the calculation of interest, to Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Recovery decision notified before that regulation entered into force)

5

2015/C 354/06

Case C-110/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Horațiu Ovidiu Costea v SC Volksbank România SA (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 2(b) — Concept of consumer — Credit agreement concluded by a natural person who practises as a lawyer — Repayment of a loan secured on a building owned by the borrower’s law firm — Borrower who has the necessary knowledge to assess the unfairness of a term before signing the agreement)

6

2015/C 354/07

Case C-125/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Iron & Smith kft v Unilever NV (Request for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Registration of a national trade mark identical with, or similar to, an earlier Community trade mark — Community trade mark having a reputation in the European Union — Geographical extent of the reputation)

7

2015/C 354/08

Case C-127/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/19/EC — Point 7 of Annex I — Deposit-guarantee scheme — Exclusion of certain depositors from the deposit-guarantee scheme — Exclusion of a manager)

7

2015/C 354/09

Case C-309/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — National legislation — Issue and renewal of a residence permit — Condition — Obligatory financial contribution — Amount eight times higher than that for obtaining a national identity card — Infringement of the principles of Directive 2003/109/EC)

8

2015/C 354/10

Case C-321/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Colena AG v Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Scope — Non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs — Statement on the outer packaging describing the product in question as a cosmetic product — Consumer protection)

9

2015/C 354/11

Case C-383/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Sodiaal International (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3 — Recovery of Community aid — Administrative penalty — Administrative measures — Limitation period)

9

2015/C 354/12

Case C-386/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 4(2) — Cross-border distributions of dividends — Corporation tax — Group taxation (French intégration fiscale) — Tax exemption for dividends paid by subsidiaries belonging to the tax-integrated group — Residence qualification — Dividends paid by non-resident subsidiaries — Non-deductible costs and expenses relating to the holding)

10

2015/C 354/13

Case C-463/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) — Meaning of supply of services — Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services — Chargeable event — Need for proof of the actual supply of services — Chargeability of the tax)

11

2015/C 354/14

Case C-342/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 July 2015 — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

11

2015/C 354/15

Case C-375/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 July 2015 — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

12

2015/C 354/16

Case C-380/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Illes Balears (Spain) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Francisca Garzón Ramos and José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A., Intercotrans, S.L.

13

2015/C 354/17

Case C-382/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-183/13: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

14

2015/C 354/18

Case C-383/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-423/12: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

15

2015/C 354/19

Case C-384/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-184/13: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

16

2015/C 354/20

Case C-387/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Hilde Orleans and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

18

2015/C 354/21

Case C-388/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

19

2015/C 354/22

Case C-395/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2015 — Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus S.L.

19

2015/C 354/23

Case C-398/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni

20

2015/C 354/24

Case C-431/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Liberbank S.A. v Rafael Piris del Campo

21

2015/C 354/25

Case C-433/15: Action brought on 6 August 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic

22

2015/C 354/26

Case C-443/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 August 2015 — Dr David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

24

2015/C 354/27

Case C-445/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 17 August 2015 — The Queen on the application of Nutricia Limited v Secretary of State for Health

25

2015/C 354/28

Case C-458/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against K.B.

27

2015/C 354/29

Case C-468/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union

27

2015/C 354/30

Case C-257/15: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH

28

2015/C 354/31

Case C-299/15: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniele Striani, Mad Management SPRL, Franck Boucher and Others, RFC. Seresien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)

29

General Court

2015/C 354/32

Case T-30/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

30

2015/C 354/33

Case T-77/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a grey background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a grey background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

30

2015/C 354/34

Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer — Technical examination — Distinctiveness — Test guidelines — Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO)

31

2015/C 354/35

Case T-94/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a blue background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a blue background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

32

2015/C 354/36

Case T-143/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a yellow background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a yellow background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

32

2015/C 354/37

Case T-144/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on an ivory background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on an ivory background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

33

2015/C 354/38

Case T-321/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark STREET — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

33

2015/C 354/39

Case T-568/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

34

2015/C 354/40

Case T-569/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

35

2015/C 354/41

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)

35

2015/C 354/42

Case T-571/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

36

2015/C 354/43

Case T-572/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

36

2015/C 354/44

Case T-608/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

37

2015/C 354/45

Case T-609/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

38

2015/C 354/46

Case T-610/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO organic) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO organic — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

38

2015/C 354/47

Case T-441/13: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to respect for private life — Proportionality — Force of res judicata — Time-limit for bringing an action — Admissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

39

2015/C 354/48

Case T-523/14: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2015 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — Correction of the decision concluding the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — No need to adjudicate)

40

2015/C 354/49

Case T-495/15: Action brought on 27 August 2015 — Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus v OHIM — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)

o

40

2015/C 354/50

Case T-499/15: Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMILE)

41

2015/C 354/51

Case T-500/15: Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO)

42

2015/C 354/52

Case T-503/15: Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Aranynektár v OHIM — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal)

43

2015/C 354/53

Case T-504/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Rafhaelo Gutti v OHIM — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA)

43

2015/C 354/54

Case T-507/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Poland v Commission

44

2015/C 354/55

Case T-509/15: Action brought on 3 September 2015 — Kessel medintim v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Premeno)

45

2015/C 354/56

Case T-510/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Mengozzi v OHIM — Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)

46

2015/C 354/57

Case T-512/15: Action brought on 4 September 2015 — Sun Cali v OHIM — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)

47

2015/C 354/58

Case T-513/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Map)

®

48

2015/C 354/59

Case T-516/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Types)

48

2015/C 354/60

Case T-517/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Sales)

®

49

2015/C 354/61

Case T-518/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — France v Commission

50

2015/C 354/62

Case T-520/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Filip Mikulik against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Mikulik v Council

51

2015/C 354/63

Case T-522/15: Action brought on 10 September 2015 — CCPL and Others v Commission

52

2015/C 354/64

Case T-523/15: Action brought on 10 September 2015 — Italmobiliare and Others v Commission

53

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2015/C 354/65

Case F-103/15: Action brought on 16 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

55

2015/C 354/66

Case F-111/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

55

2015/C 354/67

Case F-119/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol

56

2015/C 354/68

Case F-120/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol

56

2015/C 354/69

Case F-121/15: Action brought on 21 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission

57

2015/C 354/70

Case F-122/15: Action brought on 22 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission

57

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 354/01)

Last publication

OJ C 346, 19.10.2015

Past publications

OJ C 337, 12.10.2015

OJ C 328, 5.10.2015

OJ C 320, 28.9.2015

OJ C 311, 21.9.2015

OJ C 302, 14.9.2015

OJ C 294, 7.9.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/2

---

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

(2015/C 354/02)

On 8 October 2015, the Plenary Meeting of the General Court decided, following the entry into office of Judge Forrester, to amend the decision of the General Court of 23 September 2013 (1), on the assignment of Judges to Chambers.

For the period from 8 October 2015 to 31 August 2016, the assignment of Judges to Chambers is as follows:

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kanninen, Vice-President, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Buttigieg, Mr Gervasoni and Mr Madise, Judges.

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kanninen, Vice-President;

Ms Pelikánová, Judge;

Mr Buttigieg, Judge.

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber, Mr Bieliūnas, Mr Gervasoni, Mr Madise and Mr Forrester, Judges.

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber;

Mr Gervasoni, Judge;

Mr Madise, Judge.

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Bieliūnas, Mr Kreuschitz and Mr Forrester, Judges.

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber;

Mr Kreuschitz, Judge;

Mr Forrester, Judge.

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Prek, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Kreuschitz, Judges.

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Prek, President of the Chamber;

Ms Labucka, Judge;

Mr Kreuschitz, Judge.

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Collins, Judges.

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber;

Mr Schwarcz, Judge;

Ms Tomljenović, Judge.

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Collins and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber;

Mr Dehousse, Judge;

Mr Collins, Judge.

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Kancheva, Mr Wetter and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber;

Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge;

Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judge.

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Popescu, Ms Kancheva and Mr Wetter, Judges.

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber;

Ms Kancheva, Judge;

Mr Wetter, Judge.

Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Pelikánová, Mr Popescu and Mr Buttigieg, Judges.

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber;

Mr Czúcz, Judge;

Mr Popescu, Judge.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013, p. 2.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 — Inuit Tapiriit and Others v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-398/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 737/2010 - Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Restrictions on the import and marketing of those products - Validity - Legal basis - Article 95 EC - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17 - United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Article 19))

(2015/C 354/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Jaypootie Moesesie, Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak, David Kuptana, Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diş Ticaret Ltd Şirketi, Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd (represented by: H. Viaene, J. Bouckaert and D. Gillet, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and C. Hermes, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2) | Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Mrs Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diş Ticaret Ltd Şirketi and Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Mrs Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diş Ticaret Ltd Şirketi and Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3) | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-526/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148(a) - Supply of goods - Definition - Exemption - Supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas - Supplies to intermediaries acting in their own name))

(2015/C 354/04)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 148(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for in that provision is not, in principle, applicable to supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning to intermediaries acting in their own name, even if, at the date on which the supply is made the ultimate use of the goods is known and duly established and evidence confirming this is submitted to the tax authority in accordance with the national legislation. However, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that exemption may apply if the transfer to those intermediaries of the ownership in the goods concerned under the procedures laid down by the applicable national law took place at the earliest at the same time when the operators of vessels used for navigation on the high seas were actually entitled to dispose of those goods as if they were the owners, a matter which is for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-89/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Determination of the calculation of interest relating to the recovery of aid that is incompatible with the common market - Simple or compound interest - National legislation referring, for the calculation of interest, to Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Recovery decision notified before that regulation entered into force))

(2015/C 354/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A2A SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and Articles 11 and 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Regulation No 659/1999, do not preclude national legislation, such as Article 24(4) of Decree-Law No 185/2008 of 29 November 2008, on urgent measures to support families, work, employment and business, and to restructure the national strategic framework to combat the crisis, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 2 of 28 January 2009, which, by means of a reference to Regulation No 794/2004, provides for the application of compound interest to the recovery of State aid, even though the decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery was adopted and notified to the Member State concerned before that regulation entered into force.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Horațiu Ovidiu Costea v SC Volksbank România SA

(Case C-110/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Credit agreement concluded by a natural person who practises as a lawyer - Repayment of a loan secured on a building owned by the borrower’s law firm - Borrower who has the necessary knowledge to assess the unfairness of a term before signing the agreement))

(2015/C 354/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Horațiu Ovidiu Costea

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who practises as a lawyer and concludes a credit agreement with a bank, in which the purpose of the credit is not specified, may be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, where that agreement is not linked to that lawyer’s profession. The fact that the debt arising out of the same contract is secured by a mortgage taken out by that person in his capacity as representative of his law firm and involving goods intended for the exercise of that person’s profession, such as a building belonging to that firm, is not relevant in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Iron & Smith kft v Unilever NV

(Case C-125/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Registration of a national trade mark identical with, or similar to, an earlier Community trade mark - Community trade mark having a reputation in the European Union - Geographical extent of the reputation))

(2015/C 354/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iron & Smith kft

Defendant: Unilever NV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union. The criteria laid down by the case-law concerning the genuine use of the Community trade mark are not relevant, as such, in order to establish the existence of a ‘reputation’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union. The criteria laid down by the case-law concerning the genuine use of the Community trade mark are not relevant, as such, in order to establish the existence of a ‘reputation’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) thereof.

| 2) | If the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95 where it is shown that a commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may occur in the future. |
| --- | --- |

2)

If the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95 where it is shown that a commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may occur in the future.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

(Case C-127/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/19/EC - Point 7 of Annex I - Deposit-guarantee scheme - Exclusion of certain depositors from the deposit-guarantee scheme - Exclusion of a ‘manager’))

(2015/C 354/08)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā Tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrejs Surmačs

Defendant: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | The deposits excluded under point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, are listed exhaustively in that provision, so that the Member States cannot provide, in their national law, for other categories of depositors who are not covered, in terms of the functions carried out, by the concepts listed in that point, in order for the exclusion from the deposit-guarantee to be applied to them. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The deposits excluded under point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, are listed exhaustively in that provision, so that the Member States cannot provide, in their national law, for other categories of depositors who are not covered, in terms of the functions carried out, by the concepts listed in that point, in order for the exclusion from the deposit-guarantee to be applied to them.

| 2) | Point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the guarantee laid down by that directive, as a manager, persons who, because of the function exercised within the credit institution, have, irrespective of the title of that function, a level of information and expertise which enables them to assess the actual financial situation and the risks associated with the activity of the credit institution. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the guarantee laid down by that directive, as a manager, persons who, because of the function exercised within the credit institution, have, irrespective of the title of that function, a level of information and expertise which enables them to assess the actual financial situation and the risks associated with the activity of the credit institution.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-309/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - National legislation - Issue and renewal of a residence permit - Condition - Obligatory financial contribution - Amount eight times higher than that for obtaining a national identity card - Infringement of the principles of Directive 2003/109/EC))

(2015/C 354/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA)

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, as amended by Directive 2011/51/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011, precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires third-country nationals, when applying for the issue or renewal of a residence permit in the Member State concerned, to pay a fee which varies in amount between EUR 80 and EUR 200, inasmuch as such a fee is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by that directive and is liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Colena AG v Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH

(Case C-321/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Scope - Non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs - Statement on the outer packaging describing the product in question as a cosmetic product - Consumer protection))

(2015/C 354/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Colena AG

Defendant: Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs do not fall within the scope of that regulation, notwithstanding the fact that their outer packaging bears the statement ‘cosmetic eye accessory, subject to the EU Cosmetics Directive’.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Sodiaal International

(Case C-383/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3 - Recovery of Community aid - Administrative penalty - Administrative measures - Limitation period))

(2015/C 354/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendant: Société Sodiaal International

Operative part of the judgment

The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation which it lays down is applicable not only to proceedings concerning irregularities which lead to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5 thereof but also to proceedings which lead to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-386/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(2) - Cross-border distributions of dividends - Corporation tax - Group taxation (French intégration fiscale) - Tax exemption for dividends paid by subsidiaries belonging to the tax-integrated group - Residence qualification - Dividends paid by non-resident subsidiaries - Non-deductible costs and expenses relating to the holding))

(2015/C 354/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Groupe Steria SCA

Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State that govern a tax integration regime under which a tax-integrated parent company is entitled to neutralisation as regards the add-back of a proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5 % of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies, when such neutralisation is refused to it under those rules as regards the dividends distributed to it from subsidiaries located in another Member State, which, had they been resident, would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-463/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services - Chargeable event - Need for proof of the actual supply of services - Chargeability of the tax))

(2015/C 354/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract.

| 2. | As regards subscription contracts for consulting services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 62(2), 63 and 64(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As regards subscription contracts for consulting services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 62(2), 63 and 64(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services.

---

(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 July 2015 — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

(Case C-342/15)

(2015/C 354/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1(1), second sentence, of Council Directive 77/249/EEC (1) of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services to be interpreted as enabling a Member State to exclude certification of the authenticity of signatures on instruments which are necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property from the freedom to provide services by lawyers and to reserve the provision of this service to public notaries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1(1), second sentence, of Council Directive 77/249/EEC (1) of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services to be interpreted as enabling a Member State to exclude certification of the authenticity of signatures on instruments which are necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property from the freedom to provide services by lawyers and to reserve the provision of this service to public notaries?

| 2. | Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision of the State of registry (Austria) under which certification of the authenticity of signatures on instruments which are necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to public notaries, with the effect that a declaration of the authenticity of a signature by a lawyer established in the Czech Republic made in his State of establishment is not recognised in the State of registry, despite this declaration being accorded the legal effect of an official certification under Czech law,
  in particular because,






  a. | the question of the recognition of a declaration of the authenticity of a signature on a request for entry in the land register of the State of registry made in the Czech Republic by a lawyer established there relates to the provision of a service by a lawyer the content of which is not possible for lawyers established in the State of registry, and the refusal to recognise it is therefore not subject to the prohibition of restrictions on recognition |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision of the State of registry (Austria) under which certification of the authenticity of signatures on instruments which are necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to public notaries, with the effect that a declaration of the authenticity of a signature by a lawyer established in the Czech Republic made in his State of establishment is not recognised in the State of registry, despite this declaration being accorded the legal effect of an official certification under Czech law,

in particular because,

a.

the question of the recognition of a declaration of the authenticity of a signature on a request for entry in the land register of the State of registry made in the Czech Republic by a lawyer established there relates to the provision of a service by a lawyer the content of which is not possible for lawyers established in the State of registry, and the refusal to recognise it is therefore not subject to the prohibition of restrictions on recognition

or

| b. | such a reservation is justified to ensure the legality and legal certainty of acts (instruments relating to legal transactions) and as a consequence is required for reasons of public interest and is also necessary to achieve this objective in the State of registry? |
| --- | --- |

b.

such a reservation is justified to ensure the legality and legal certainty of acts (instruments relating to legal transactions) and as a consequence is required for reasons of public interest and is also necessary to achieve this objective in the State of registry?

---

(1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 July 2015 — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-375/15)

(2015/C 354/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG

Respondent: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC (1) on payment services in the internal market (‘the Payment Services Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that information (in electronic format) transmitted by the bank to the e-mail inbox of the customer as part of online banking (eBanking), so that the customer can retrieve this information by clicking on it after logging in to the eBanking website, has been provided on a durable medium? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC (1) on payment services in the internal market (‘the Payment Services Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that information (in electronic format) transmitted by the bank to the e-mail inbox of the customer as part of online banking (eBanking), so that the customer can retrieve this information by clicking on it after logging in to the eBanking website, has been provided on a durable medium?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
  Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of the Payment Services Directive to be interpreted as meaning that in such a case






  (a) | the information from the bank is indeed provided on a durable medium, but not notified to the customer, merely made accessible to him, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of the Payment Services Directive to be interpreted as meaning that in such a case

(a)

the information from the bank is indeed provided on a durable medium, but not notified to the customer, merely made accessible to him, or

| (b) | all that happens is that the information is made accessible without the use of a durable medium? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

all that happens is that the information is made accessible without the use of a durable medium?

---

(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Illes Balears (Spain) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Francisca Garzón Ramos and José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A., Intercotrans, S.L.

(Case C-380/15)

(2015/C 354/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Illes Balears

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Francisca Garzón Ramos and José Javier Ramos Martín

Defendants: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A., Intercotrans, S.L.

Questions referred

| 1. | In providing that a court seised of ordinary proceedings for the annulment of an enforceable instrument cannot under any circumstances grant interim relief staying mortgage enforcement proceedings relating to the instrument claimed to be null and void, is Article 698(1) of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil compatible with the principle of effective judicial protection affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In providing that a court seised of ordinary proceedings for the annulment of an enforceable instrument cannot under any circumstances grant interim relief staying mortgage enforcement proceedings relating to the instrument claimed to be null and void, is Article 698(1) of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil compatible with the principle of effective judicial protection affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1)?

| 2. | In the event that the answer to the previous question is that the provision of Spanish law is not compatible with the article of the Charter in question, is the case-law of the Court of Justice, and in particular its judgment in Case C-169/14 (2)
  Sánchez Morcillo and Abril García, therefore applicable to this case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the answer to the previous question is that the provision of Spanish law is not compatible with the article of the Charter in question, is the case-law of the Court of Justice, and in particular its judgment in Case C-169/14 (2)
  Sánchez Morcillo and Abril García, therefore applicable to this case?

---

(1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

(2)  EU:C:2014:2099.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/14

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-183/13: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-382/15 P)

(2015/C 354/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Skype (represented by: A. Carboni, M. Browne, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky IP International Ltd, Sky plc

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should order:

| — | that the decision of the General Court dated 5 May 2015 in T-183/13 be annulled in its entirety and the application be remitted to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

that the decision of the General Court dated 5 May 2015 in T-183/13 be annulled in its entirety and the application be remitted to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

| — | that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings and those of (i) the appeal before the General Court in Case T-183/13; (ii) the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case R 2398/2010-4; and (iii) Opposition B 812 380 before the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings and those of (i) the appeal before the General Court in Case T-183/13; (ii) the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case R 2398/2010-4; and (iii) Opposition B 812 380 before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant’s sole Ground of Appeal is that the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 0f 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark (1) in giving its decision in case number T-183/13 relating to Community Trade Mark application no. 3 660 065 (the ‘Contested Mark’). In particular, the General Court made the following errors in reaching its decision to uphold the Respondent’s finding of likelihood of confusion:

| 1. | when considering the similarity of goods and services between the Contested Mark and the Interveners’ earlier mark, the Court identified an incorrect list of services covered by the Contested Mark; |
| --- | --- |

1.

when considering the similarity of goods and services between the Contested Mark and the Interveners’ earlier mark, the Court identified an incorrect list of services covered by the Contested Mark;

| 2. | it incorrectly assessed the characteristics of the relevant public, failing to take account of the fact that the Appellant’s Skype service was based on a very new and innovative form of technology as at the priority date of the Contested Mark (the ‘Relevant Date’), and therefore that the relevant public had an above average level of technical expertise and an enhanced capability of distinguishing between brands; |
| --- | --- |

2.

it incorrectly assessed the characteristics of the relevant public, failing to take account of the fact that the Appellant’s Skype service was based on a very new and innovative form of technology as at the priority date of the Contested Mark (the ‘Relevant Date’), and therefore that the relevant public had an above average level of technical expertise and an enhanced capability of distinguishing between brands;

| 3. | it appears to have wrongly assumed that the Appellant’s acceptance that the services covered by the Contested Mark are identical to certain of the services covered by the earlier mark was also an acceptance that the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character and/or reputation in respect of those areas of crossover with the specification for the Contested Mark as at the Relevant Date; |
| --- | --- |

3.

it appears to have wrongly assumed that the Appellant’s acceptance that the services covered by the Contested Mark are identical to certain of the services covered by the earlier mark was also an acceptance that the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character and/or reputation in respect of those areas of crossover with the specification for the Contested Mark as at the Relevant Date;

| 4. | it misapplied the law in several respects when evaluating the Respondent’s assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in issue, in particular, by relying on the incorrect legal fiction that the average consumer reads single short words from left to right, and placing undue weight on the coincidence of the letters S-K-Y at the start of both marks, as well as failing to appreciate that the conceptual difference between them counteracts any visual or aural similarity; |
| --- | --- |

4.

it misapplied the law in several respects when evaluating the Respondent’s assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in issue, in particular, by relying on the incorrect legal fiction that the average consumer reads single short words from left to right, and placing undue weight on the coincidence of the letters S-K-Y at the start of both marks, as well as failing to appreciate that the conceptual difference between them counteracts any visual or aural similarity;

| 5. | it made two significant errors in upholding the Respondent’s finding that the earlier mark has an enhanced distinctive character in relation to goods and services outside the Interveners’ ‘core’ television broadcasting services: first, it wrongly relied on use of the earlier mark in relation to the Interveners’ ‘core’ services to infer distinctiveness for other services; and secondly, it took account of evidence of use that post-dated the Relevant Date; |
| --- | --- |

5.

it made two significant errors in upholding the Respondent’s finding that the earlier mark has an enhanced distinctive character in relation to goods and services outside the Interveners’ ‘core’ television broadcasting services: first, it wrongly relied on use of the earlier mark in relation to the Interveners’ ‘core’ services to infer distinctiveness for other services; and secondly, it took account of evidence of use that post-dated the Relevant Date;

| 6. | it misapplied the law in several respects when conducting the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion by failing to take into account:






  i. | the substantial reputation enjoyed by the Contested Mark at the Relevant Date; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

it misapplied the law in several respects when conducting the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion by failing to take into account:

i.

the substantial reputation enjoyed by the Contested Mark at the Relevant Date; and

| ii. | real-world evidence that the marks in issue have peacefully coexisted in the market place for over ten years, with no infringement action having been brought by the Interveners, which is strongly indicative that there was no likelihood of confusion at the Relevant Date. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

real-world evidence that the marks in issue have peacefully coexisted in the market place for over ten years, with no infringement action having been brought by the Interveners, which is strongly indicative that there was no likelihood of confusion at the Relevant Date.

Accordingly, the Appellant requests that the Court: (1) annuls the decision of the General Court in case number T-183/13 and remits the application to the Respondent in order to allow it to proceed; and (2) orders that the costs of the proceedings be awarded to the Appellant.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/15

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-423/12: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-383/15 P)

(2015/C 354/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Skype (represented by: A. Carboni, M. Browne, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky IP International Ltd, Sky plc

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should order that:

| — | the decision of the General Court dated 5 May 2015 in T-423/12 be annulled in its entirety and the application be remitted to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision of the General Court dated 5 May 2015 in T-423/12 be annulled in its entirety and the application be remitted to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

| — | that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings and those of (i) the appeal before the General Court in Case T-423/12; (ii) the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case ‘ 1561/2010-4; and (iii) Opposition B 1 023 680 before the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings and those of (i) the appeal before the General Court in Case T-423/12; (ii) the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case ‘ 1561/2010-4; and (iii) Opposition B 1 023 680 before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant’s sole Ground of Appeal is that the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 0f 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark (1) in giving its decision in case number T-423/12 relating to Community Trade Mark application no. 4 546 248 (the ‘Contested Mark’). In particular, the General Court made the following errors in reaching its decision to uphold the Respondent’s finding of likelihood of confusion:

| 1. | it incorrectly assessed the characteristics of the relevant public, failing to take account of the fact that the Appellant’s Skype service was based on a very new and innovative form of technology as at the priority date of the Contested Mark (the ‘Relevant Date’), and therefore that the relevant public had an above average level of technical expertise and an enhanced capability of distinguishing between brands; |
| --- | --- |

1.

it incorrectly assessed the characteristics of the relevant public, failing to take account of the fact that the Appellant’s Skype service was based on a very new and innovative form of technology as at the priority date of the Contested Mark (the ‘Relevant Date’), and therefore that the relevant public had an above average level of technical expertise and an enhanced capability of distinguishing between brands;

| 2. | it appears to have wrongly assumed that the Appellant’s acceptance that the goods and services covered by the Contested Mark are identical to certain of the goods and services covered by the earlier mark was also an acceptance that the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character and/or reputation in respect of those areas of crossover with the specification for the Contested Mark as at the Relevant Date; |
| --- | --- |

2.

it appears to have wrongly assumed that the Appellant’s acceptance that the goods and services covered by the Contested Mark are identical to certain of the goods and services covered by the earlier mark was also an acceptance that the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character and/or reputation in respect of those areas of crossover with the specification for the Contested Mark as at the Relevant Date;

| 3. | it misapplied the law in several respects when evaluating the Respondent’s assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in issue, in particular, by relying on the incorrect legal fiction that the average consumer reads single short words from left to right; by placing undue weight on the coincidence of the letters S-K-Y at the start of both marks; by failing to take account of the graphical element of the Contested Mark; and by failing to appreciate that the conceptual difference between the marks counteracts any visual or aural similarity; |
| --- | --- |

3.

it misapplied the law in several respects when evaluating the Respondent’s assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in issue, in particular, by relying on the incorrect legal fiction that the average consumer reads single short words from left to right; by placing undue weight on the coincidence of the letters S-K-Y at the start of both marks; by failing to take account of the graphical element of the Contested Mark; and by failing to appreciate that the conceptual difference between the marks counteracts any visual or aural similarity;

| 4. | it made two significant errors in upholding the Respondent’s finding that the earlier mark has an enhanced distinctive character in relation to goods and services outside the Interveners’ ‘core’ television broadcasting services: first, it wrongly relied on use of the earlier mark in relation to the Interveners’ ‘core’ services to infer distinctiveness for other services: and secondly, it took account of evidence of use that post-dated the Relevant Date; |
| --- | --- |

4.

it made two significant errors in upholding the Respondent’s finding that the earlier mark has an enhanced distinctive character in relation to goods and services outside the Interveners’ ‘core’ television broadcasting services: first, it wrongly relied on use of the earlier mark in relation to the Interveners’ ‘core’ services to infer distinctiveness for other services: and secondly, it took account of evidence of use that post-dated the Relevant Date;

| 5. | it misapplied the law in several respects when conducting the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion by failing to take into account:






  i. | the substantial reputation enjoyed by the Contested Mark at the Relevant Date; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

it misapplied the law in several respects when conducting the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion by failing to take into account:

i.

the substantial reputation enjoyed by the Contested Mark at the Relevant Date; and

| ii. | real-world evidence that the marks in issue have peacefully coexisted in the market place for over ten years, with no infringement action having been brought by the Interveners, which is strongly indicative that there was no likelihood of confusion at the Relevant Date. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

real-world evidence that the marks in issue have peacefully coexisted in the market place for over ten years, with no infringement action having been brought by the Interveners, which is strongly indicative that there was no likelihood of confusion at the Relevant Date.

Accordingly, the Appellant requests that the Court: (1) annuls the decision of the General Court in case number T-423/12 and remits the application to the Respondent in order to allow it to proceed; and (2) orders that the costs of the proceedings be awarded to the Appellant.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/16

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-184/13: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-384/15 P)

(2015/C 354/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Skype (represented by: A. Carboni, M. Browne, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky IP International Ltd, Sky plc

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should order:

| — | that the decision of the General Court dated 5 May 2015 in T-184/13 be annulled in its entirety and the application be remitted to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

that the decision of the General Court dated 5 May 2015 in T-184/13 be annulled in its entirety and the application be remitted to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

| — | that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings and those of (i) the appeal before the General Court in Case T-184/13; (ii) the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case R 121/2011-4, and (iii) Opposition B 1 046 046 before the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings and those of (i) the appeal before the General Court in Case T-184/13; (ii) the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case R 121/2011-4, and (iii) Opposition B 1 046 046 before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant’s sole Ground of Appeal is that the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 0f 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark (1) in giving its decision in case number T-184/13 relating to Community Trade Mark application no. 4 521 084 (the ‘Contested Mark’). In particular, the General Court made the following errors in reaching its decision to uphold the Respondent’s finding of likelihood of confusion:

| 1. | it incorrectly assessed the characteristics of the relevant public, failing to take account of the fact that the Appellant’s Skype service was based on a very new and innovative form of technology as at the priority date of the Contested Mark (the ‘Relevant Date’), and therefore that the relevant public had an above average level of technical expertise and an enhanced capability of distinguishing between brands; |
| --- | --- |

1.

it incorrectly assessed the characteristics of the relevant public, failing to take account of the fact that the Appellant’s Skype service was based on a very new and innovative form of technology as at the priority date of the Contested Mark (the ‘Relevant Date’), and therefore that the relevant public had an above average level of technical expertise and an enhanced capability of distinguishing between brands;

| 2. | it appears to have wrongly assumed that the Appellant’s acceptance that the goods and services covered by the Contested Mark are identical to certain of the goods and services covered by the earlier mark was also an acceptance that the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character and/or reputation in respect of those areas of crossover with the specification for the Contested Mark as at the Relevant Date; |
| --- | --- |

2.

it appears to have wrongly assumed that the Appellant’s acceptance that the goods and services covered by the Contested Mark are identical to certain of the goods and services covered by the earlier mark was also an acceptance that the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character and/or reputation in respect of those areas of crossover with the specification for the Contested Mark as at the Relevant Date;

| 3. | it misapplied the law in several respects when evaluating the Respondent’s assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in issue, in particular, by relying on the incorrect legal fiction that the average consumer reads single short words from left to right, and placing undue weight on the coincidence of the letters S-K-Y at the start of both marks, as well as failing to appreciate that the conceptual difference between them counteracts any visual or aural similarity; |
| --- | --- |

3.

it misapplied the law in several respects when evaluating the Respondent’s assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in issue, in particular, by relying on the incorrect legal fiction that the average consumer reads single short words from left to right, and placing undue weight on the coincidence of the letters S-K-Y at the start of both marks, as well as failing to appreciate that the conceptual difference between them counteracts any visual or aural similarity;

| 4. | it made two significant errors in upholding the Respondent’s finding that the earlier mark has an enhanced distinctive character in relation to goods and services outside the Interveners’ ‘core’ television broadcasting services: first, it wrongly relied on use of the earlier mark in relation to the Interveners’ ‘core’ services to infer distinctiveness for other services; and secondly, it took account of evidence of use that post-dated the Relevant Date; |
| --- | --- |

4.

it made two significant errors in upholding the Respondent’s finding that the earlier mark has an enhanced distinctive character in relation to goods and services outside the Interveners’ ‘core’ television broadcasting services: first, it wrongly relied on use of the earlier mark in relation to the Interveners’ ‘core’ services to infer distinctiveness for other services; and secondly, it took account of evidence of use that post-dated the Relevant Date;

| 5. | it misapplied the law in several respects when conducting the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion by failing to take into account:






  i. | the substantial reputation enjoyed by the Contested Mark at the Relevant Date; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

it misapplied the law in several respects when conducting the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion by failing to take into account:

i.

the substantial reputation enjoyed by the Contested Mark at the Relevant Date; and

| ii. | real-world evidence that the marks in issue have peacefully coexisted in the market place for over ten years, with no infringement action having been brought by the Interveners, which is strongly indicative that there was no likelihood of confusion at the Relevant Date. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

real-world evidence that the marks in issue have peacefully coexisted in the market place for over ten years, with no infringement action having been brought by the Interveners, which is strongly indicative that there was no likelihood of confusion at the Relevant Date.

Accordingly, the Appellant requests that the Court: (1) annuls the decision of the General Court in case number T-184/13 and remits the application to the Respondent in order to allow it to proceed; and (2) orders that the costs of the proceedings be awarded to the Appellant.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Hilde Orleans and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

(Case C-387/15)

(2015/C 354/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervener: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Question referred

The Regional Development Implementation Plan (GRUP) contains planning rules under which, in mandatory terms, the development of areas (more specifically, for seaport- and water-related businesses, for a logistics park, for waterway infrastructure and for traffic and transport infrastructure) which have ecological features (areas hosting a natural habitat type or the habitat of a species for which the special area of conservation concerned was designated) which make a contribution to the conservation objectives of the special areas of conservation concerned, is possible only after the creation of sustainable habitats in ecological core areas (designated within the Natura 2000 area) and following a decision by the Flemish Government preceded by an opinion from the Flemish administrative body responsible for nature conservation — which should form part of an application for a planning permit with a view to the development of the aforementioned facilities — that the sustainable creation of the ecological core areas has been successful.

Can those planning rules with their envisaged positive developments of ecological core areas be taken into account in the determination, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), of potentially significant effects and/or in the making of an appropriate assessment, or can those planning rules be regarded only as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in so far as the conditions laid down in that provision have been satisfied?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

(Case C-388/15)

(2015/C 354/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervener: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Question referred

The Regional Development Implementation Plan (GRUP) contains planning rules under which, in mandatory terms, the development of areas (more specifically, for seaport- and water-related businesses, for a logistics park, for waterway infrastructure and for traffic and transport infrastructure) which have ecological features (areas hosting a natural habitat type or the habitat of a species for which the special area of conservation concerned was designated) which make a contribution to the conservation objectives of the special areas of conservation concerned, is possible only after the creation of sustainable habitats in ecological core areas (designated within the Natura 2000 area) and following a decision by the Flemish Government preceded by an opinion from the Flemish administrative body responsible for nature conservation — which should form part of an application for a planning permit with a view to the development of the aforementioned facilities — that the sustainable creation of the ecological core areas has been successful.

Can those planning rules with their envisaged positive developments of ecological core areas be taken into account in the determination, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), of potentially significant effects and/or in the making of an appropriate assessment, or can those planning rules be regarded only as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in so far as the conditions laid down in that provision have been satisfied?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2015 — Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus S.L.

(Case C-395/15)

(2015/C 354/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Daouidi

Defendants: Bootes Plus S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Public Prosecutor

Questions referred

| (1) | Must the general prohibition of discrimination affirmed in Article 21.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) be interpreted as including, within the ambit of its prohibition and protection, the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because of his finding himself in a situation of temporary incapacity for work — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he was receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must the general prohibition of discrimination affirmed in Article 21.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) be interpreted as including, within the ambit of its prohibition and protection, the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because of his finding himself in a situation of temporary incapacity for work — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he was receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security?

| (2) | Must Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the protection that must be afforded a worker who has been the subject of a manifestly arbitrary and groundless dismissal must be the protection provided for in national legislation for every dismissal which infringes a fundamental right? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Must Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the protection that must be afforded a worker who has been the subject of a manifestly arbitrary and groundless dismissal must be the protection provided for in national legislation for every dismissal which infringes a fundamental right?

| (3) | Would a decision of an employer to dismiss a worker previously well regarded professionally merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, fall within the ambit and/or protection of Articles 3, 15, 31, 34(1) and 35(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (or any one or more of them)? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Would a decision of an employer to dismiss a worker previously well regarded professionally merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, fall within the ambit and/or protection of Articles 3, 15, 31, 34(1) and 35(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (or any one or more of them)?

| (4) | If the three foregoing questions (or any of them) are answered in the affirmative and the decision to dismiss the worker, previously professionally well regarded, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, is to be interpreted as falling within the ambit and/or protection of one or more articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, may those articles be applied by the national court in order to settle a dispute between private individuals, either on the view that — depending on whether a ‘right’ or ‘principle’ is at issue — that they enjoy horizontal effect or by virtue of application of the ‘principle that national law is to be interpreted in conformity with an EU directive’?
  If the four foregoing questions should be answered in the negative, a fourth question is referred: |
| --- | --- |

(4)

If the three foregoing questions (or any of them) are answered in the affirmative and the decision to dismiss the worker, previously professionally well regarded, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, is to be interpreted as falling within the ambit and/or protection of one or more articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, may those articles be applied by the national court in order to settle a dispute between private individuals, either on the view that — depending on whether a ‘right’ or ‘principle’ is at issue — that they enjoy horizontal effect or by virtue of application of the ‘principle that national law is to be interpreted in conformity with an EU directive’?

If the four foregoing questions should be answered in the negative, a fourth question is referred:

| (5) | Would the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — by reason of an accident at work, be caught by the term ‘direct discrimination ... on grounds of disability’ as one of the grounds of discrimination envisaged in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78 (2)? |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Would the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — by reason of an accident at work, be caught by the term ‘direct discrimination ... on grounds of disability’ as one of the grounds of discrimination envisaged in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78 (2)?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni

(Case C-398/15)

(2015/C 354/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce

Defendant: Salvatore Manni

Questions referred

| 1) | Must the principle of keeping personal data in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed, laid down in Article 6(e) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, (1) implemented by Legislative Decree No 196 of 30 June 2003, take precedence over and, therefore, preclude the system of disclosure through the commercial registers provided for by the First Council Directive 68/151/EC of 9 March 1968, (2) and by national law in Article 2188 of the Civil Code and Article 8 of Law No 580 of 29 December 1993, in so far as it is a requirement of that system that anyone may, at any time, obtain the data relating to individuals in those registers? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must the principle of keeping personal data in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed, laid down in Article 6(e) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, (1) implemented by Legislative Decree No 196 of 30 June 2003, take precedence over and, therefore, preclude the system of disclosure through the commercial registers provided for by the First Council Directive 68/151/EC of 9 March 1968, (2) and by national law in Article 2188 of the Civil Code and Article 8 of Law No 580 of 29 December 1993, in so far as it is a requirement of that system that anyone may, at any time, obtain the data relating to individuals in those registers?

| 2) | Consequently, is it permissible under Article 3 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EC of 9 March 1968 [on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community], by way of derogation from [the principles] that there should be no time limit and that anyone may consult the data published in the companies register, for the data no longer to be subject to ‘disclosure’, in both those regards, but to be available for only a limited period and only to certain recipients, on the basis of an assessment case by case by the data manager? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Consequently, is it permissible under Article 3 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EC of 9 March 1968 [on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community], by way of derogation from [the principles] that there should be no time limit and that anyone may consult the data published in the companies register, for the data no longer to be subject to ‘disclosure’, in both those regards, but to be available for only a limited period and only to certain recipients, on the basis of an assessment case by case by the data manager?

---

(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

(2)  First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ 1968 L 65, p. 8).

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Liberbank S.A. v Rafael Piris del Campo

(Case C-431/15)

(2015/C 354/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria — Section 4

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Liberbank S.A.

Other party to proceedings: Rafael Piris del Campo

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the limitation on the retroactive effects of a ruling that a ‘floor clause’ inserted in a consumer contract is unfair and therefore null and void compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer and with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the limitation on the retroactive effects of a ruling that a ‘floor clause’ inserted in a consumer contract is unfair and therefore null and void compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer and with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

| 2. | Is the maintenance of the effects of a floor clause, inserted in a consumer contract, which is declared unfair and therefore null and void, compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the maintenance of the effects of a floor clause, inserted in a consumer contract, which is declared unfair and therefore null and void, compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

| 3. | Is the limitation on the retroactive effects of a ruling that a floor clause in a consumer contract is unfair and therefore null and void because it is considered that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy and good faith compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the limitation on the retroactive effects of a ruling that a floor clause in a consumer contract is unfair and therefore null and void because it is considered that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy and good faith compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

| 4. | If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to assume, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term in a consumer contract, that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy or must that risk be assessed and evaluated in the light of the specific economic data from which it is inferred that granting retroactive effects to a ruling that an unfair term is null and void has macroeconomic consequences? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to assume, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term in a consumer contract, that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy or must that risk be assessed and evaluated in the light of the specific economic data from which it is inferred that granting retroactive effects to a ruling that an unfair term is null and void has macroeconomic consequences?

| 5. | In turn, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term inserted in a consumer contract, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 [on unfair terms in consumer contracts] to assess the risk of serious disruption to financial public policy in the light of the economic consequences of individual actions brought by a large number of consumers? Or, on the contrary, is that risk to be assessed in the light of the financial effect on the economy of the specific individual action brought by the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In turn, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term inserted in a consumer contract, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 [on unfair terms in consumer contracts] to assess the risk of serious disruption to financial public policy in the light of the economic consequences of individual actions brought by a large number of consumers? Or, on the contrary, is that risk to be assessed in the light of the financial effect on the economy of the specific individual action brought by the consumer?

| 6. | If the reply to the third question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to make an abstract assessment of the conduct of any seller or supplier in order to evaluate good faith? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the reply to the third question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to make an abstract assessment of the conduct of any seller or supplier in order to evaluate good faith?

| 7. | Or, on the contrary, must that good faith be examined and assessed in each specific case, in the light of the specific conduct of the seller or supplier when concluding the contract and inserting the unfair term in the contract, in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Or, on the contrary, must that good faith be examined and assessed in each specific case, in the light of the specific conduct of the seller or supplier when concluding the contract and inserting the unfair term in the contract, in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/22

---

Action brought on 6 August 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-433/15)

(2015/C 354/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, D. Nardi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

| — | (a) | declare that, by failing to ensure that the additional levy payable in respect of quantities produced in Italy in excess of the national quota from the first year in which the additional levy was in fact applied in Italy (1995/1996) until the last year in which there was surplus production in Italy (2008/2009) was in fact charged to the account of the individual producers who had contributed to each of the production overruns and that it was paid at the appropriate time, upon their being given notification of the amount payable, by the purchaser or the producer in the case of direct sales or, where the levy was not paid within the period prescribed, registered and, where possible, collected by way of enforcement from those purchasers or producers, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by the relevant provisions of EU law applicable in the years concerned, in particular: (i) Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1), (ii) Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 (2), (iii) Articles 79, 80 and 83 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (3), and, with regard to the Commission’s implementing provisions, (iv) Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 536/1993 (4), (v) Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 (5), and (vi) Articles 15 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 (6); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

(a)

declare that, by failing to ensure that the additional levy payable in respect of quantities produced in Italy in excess of the national quota from the first year in which the additional levy was in fact applied in Italy (1995/1996) until the last year in which there was surplus production in Italy (2008/2009) was in fact charged to the account of the individual producers who had contributed to each of the production overruns and that it was paid at the appropriate time, upon their being given notification of the amount payable, by the purchaser or the producer in the case of direct sales or, where the levy was not paid within the period prescribed, registered and, where possible, collected by way of enforcement from those purchasers or producers, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by the relevant provisions of EU law applicable in the years concerned, in particular: (i) Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1), (ii) Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 (2), (iii) Articles 79, 80 and 83 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (3), and, with regard to the Commission’s implementing provisions, (iv) Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 536/1993 (4), (v) Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 (5), and (vi) Articles 15 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 (6);

| — | (b) | order Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

(b)

order Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claim, the Commission submits that, according to the figures provided by the Italian authorities or, in any event, acquired in the course of the pre-litigation procedure, the total amount of the additional levy yet to be recovered is EUR 1  343 million. The total amount of the additional levy actually recovered is approximately EUR 282 million out of a total levy charged of approximately EUR 2  305 million, during the period from the first marketing year in which the additional levy system was formally introduced in Italy (1995/1996) until the last year in which surplus production was recorded (2008/2009). After deduction of the amounts covered by instalment plans (EUR 469 million) and sums written off (EUR 211 million), the ratio of the levy actually collected to the levy still to be recovered, net of sums that are the subject of instalment plans and amounts written off, is 21 %. In essence, the sums actually recovered represent less than a quarter of those still to be recovered at the date set out in the reasoned opinion.

The Commission states that the percentage of the sums actually recovered vis-à-vis the sums charged for each marketing year concerned, net of sums that are the subject of instalment plans and sums written off, shows that the system for the application of the additional levy is ineffective (given that it was generally below 21 %) during the period under consideration, notwithstanding the fact that, by the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, more than five years had elapsed since the end of the last marketing year in which there was a production surplus in Italy.

With regard to the justification put forward by Italy, to the effect that the actual recovery of the sums payable by way of the levy has been hindered by numerous actions still pending which the debtors have brought in respect of claims for payment, the Commission has presented figures relating to the sums actually recovered vis-à-vis the sums outstanding in respect of which the payments in question are not contested, for each marketing year concerned. The figures show that, out of a total of approximately EUR 1  068 million payable, only EUR 241 million has been recovered, corresponding to 23 % of the amount that may be claimed, for which there is no justification.

Given that the function of the additional levy is to discourage milk production that exceeds national reference quantities (NRQ), the continuing failure to recover such large sums 20 years after the introduction of the production quota system in Italy and six years since the last NRQ was exceeded in Italy has deprived the additional levy system of the effectiveness intended by the legislature, as also demonstrated by the fact that the NRQ was repeatedly exceeded in each marketing year between the years 1995/1996 and 2008/2009.

The Commission maintains that the failure to recover such large sums relating to the additional levy may be attributed to specific acts of negligence on the part of the Italian Republic, which explain the lack of effectiveness of the scheme for charging the additional levy in Italy during the period in question.

In the first place, the legislative confusion which characterised the Italian implementing rules caused a delay in the effective implementation of the levy system in Italy and an abnormally large volume of legal proceedings, which have had the effect of precluding the collection of the levy due to the suspension of payments ordered by the national courts as a protective measure.

In the second place, Italy has failed to make effective use of all the administrative mechanisms available for the effective recovery of the sums payable by way of the levy, such as offsetting. A scheme providing for the possibility of offsetting the levies to be collected against aid to be granted under the common agricultural policy has been introduced in an ineffective and belated manner and Italian laws are still in force today which hinder the implementation of that scheme.

In the third place, collection procedures have, for the most part, been blocked from the entry into force of Law 33/2009 to date, due to the absence of implementing provisions or contractual agreements between the authorities and the bodies involved which are necessary for the resumption of those procedures.

In the fourth place, it is apparent to the Commission that, as a result of methodological errors on the part of the authorities responsible for recovery, sums that are recoverable have been regarded, incorrectly, as not recoverable, thus giving rise to further failings in the effectiveness of the collection of the additional levy.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

(4)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12).

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19).

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 22).

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 August 2015 — Dr David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

(Case C-443/15)

(2015/C 354/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

The Labour Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr David L. Parris

Defendants: Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1), to apply a rule in an occupational benefit scheme limiting the payment of a survivor’s benefit to the surviving civil partner of a member of the scheme on their death, by a requirement that the member and his surviving civil partner entered their civil partnership prior to the member’s 60th birthday in circumstances where they were not permitted by national law to enter a civil partnership until after the member’s 60th birthday and where the member and his civil partner had formed a committed life partnership before that date. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1), to apply a rule in an occupational benefit scheme limiting the payment of a survivor’s benefit to the surviving civil partner of a member of the scheme on their death, by a requirement that the member and his surviving civil partner entered their civil partnership prior to the member’s 60th birthday in circumstances where they were not permitted by national law to enter a civil partnership until after the member’s 60th birthday and where the member and his civil partner had formed a committed life partnership before that date.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative,

| 2. | Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of age, contrary to Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, for a provider of benefits under an occupational benefit scheme to limit an entitlement to a survivor’s pension to the surviving civil partner of a member of the scheme on the member’s death, by a requirement that the member and his civil partner entered their civil partnership before the member’s 60th birthday where






  (a) | The stipulation as to the age at which a member must have entered into a civil partnership is not a criterion used in actuarial calculations, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of age, contrary to Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, for a provider of benefits under an occupational benefit scheme to limit an entitlement to a survivor’s pension to the surviving civil partner of a member of the scheme on the member’s death, by a requirement that the member and his civil partner entered their civil partnership before the member’s 60th birthday where

(a)

The stipulation as to the age at which a member must have entered into a civil partnership is not a criterion used in actuarial calculations, and

| (b) | The member and his civil partner were not permitted by national law to enter a civil partnership until after the member’s 60th birthday and where the member and his civil partner had formed a committed life partnership before that date |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The member and his civil partner were not permitted by national law to enter a civil partnership until after the member’s 60th birthday and where the member and his civil partner had formed a committed life partnership before that date

If the answer to questions 2 is in the negative:

| 3. | Would it constitute discrimination contrary to Article 2 in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC if the limitations on entitlements under an occupational benefit scheme described in either question 1 or question 2 arose from the combined effect of the age and sexual orientation of a member of the scheme? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would it constitute discrimination contrary to Article 2 in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC if the limitations on entitlements under an occupational benefit scheme described in either question 1 or question 2 arose from the combined effect of the age and sexual orientation of a member of the scheme?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ L 303, p. 16.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 17 August 2015 — The Queen on the application of Nutricia Limited v Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-445/15)

(2015/C 354/27)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nutricia Limited

Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

Questions referred

| 1. | In order for a product to be a dietary food for special medical purposes (‘FSMP’) within the definition set out in Article 1(2)(b) of Commission Directive 1999/21/EC on dietary foods for special medical purposes (1):






  a. | Must it be the case, objectively, that:






  (i) | all patients suffering from the particular disease, disorder or other medical condition for the dietary management of which the product is marketed (‘the Indicated Condition’) or |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.

In order for a product to be a dietary food for special medical purposes (‘FSMP’) within the definition set out in Article 1(2)(b) of Commission Directive 1999/21/EC on dietary foods for special medical purposes (1):

a.

Must it be the case, objectively, that:

(i)

all patients suffering from the particular disease, disorder or other medical condition for the dietary management of which the product is marketed (‘the Indicated Condition’) or

| (ii) | a subgroup of such patients
  have a limited, impaired or disturbed capacity to take, digest, absorb, metabolise or excrete ordinary foodstuffs or certain nutrients contained therein or metabolites, or other medically-determined nutrient requirements that arise as a result of the Indicated Condition? Or |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

a subgroup of such patients

have a limited, impaired or disturbed capacity to take, digest, absorb, metabolise or excrete ordinary foodstuffs or certain nutrients contained therein or metabolites, or other medically-determined nutrient requirements that arise as a result of the Indicated Condition? Or

| b. | Alternatively, is it also sufficient if the manufacturer intends that the product’s use should be ‘medically determined’ for the purpose of Article 1(2)(b) in the sense that: (i) the manufacturer intends the product to be used only under medical supervision by clinicians treating patients with the Indicated Condition, and (ii) a responsible supervising clinician could properly form a clinical judgment, on a patient-by-patient basis, that the use of such product would be an appropriate form of dietary management for some patients suffering from the Indicated Condition because the clinician reasonably considers such a patient to have particular nutritional requirements related to the Indicated Condition? |
| --- | --- |

b.

Alternatively, is it also sufficient if the manufacturer intends that the product’s use should be ‘medically determined’ for the purpose of Article 1(2)(b) in the sense that: (i) the manufacturer intends the product to be used only under medical supervision by clinicians treating patients with the Indicated Condition, and (ii) a responsible supervising clinician could properly form a clinical judgment, on a patient-by-patient basis, that the use of such product would be an appropriate form of dietary management for some patients suffering from the Indicated Condition because the clinician reasonably considers such a patient to have particular nutritional requirements related to the Indicated Condition?

| c. | If the answer to question 1(a)(ii) is ‘yes’, then (i) what proportion of patients with the Indicated Condition must have the relevant limited, impaired or disturbed capacity or other medically-determined nutrient requirements, or is there no minimum proportion, and (ii) is it necessary for that subgroup of patients to be identifiable in advance at the time when the product is marketed? |
| --- | --- |

c.

If the answer to question 1(a)(ii) is ‘yes’, then (i) what proportion of patients with the Indicated Condition must have the relevant limited, impaired or disturbed capacity or other medically-determined nutrient requirements, or is there no minimum proportion, and (ii) is it necessary for that subgroup of patients to be identifiable in advance at the time when the product is marketed?

| d. | If the answer to question 1(b) is ‘yes’, then what are the ‘particular nutritional requirements’ which the use of the product must be safe, beneficial and effective in meeting for the purposes of Article 3? |
| --- | --- |

d.

If the answer to question 1(b) is ‘yes’, then what are the ‘particular nutritional requirements’ which the use of the product must be safe, beneficial and effective in meeting for the purposes of Article 3?

| 2. | As regards the phrase ‘whose dietary management cannot be achieved only by modification of the normal diet, by other foods for particular nutritional uses, or by a combination of the two’ in Article 1(2)(b), how should the potential for modification of the diet be assessed? In particular:






  a. | Are considerations of safety and practicability of diet modification relevant in this assessment? If so, how are they to be taken into account? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

As regards the phrase ‘whose dietary management cannot be achieved only by modification of the normal diet, by other foods for particular nutritional uses, or by a combination of the two’ in Article 1(2)(b), how should the potential for modification of the diet be assessed? In particular:

a.

Are considerations of safety and practicability of diet modification relevant in this assessment? If so, how are they to be taken into account?

| b. | Is such potential for modification of the normal diet (and, if relevant, are considerations of safety and practicability) to be assessed:






  (i) | Generically, and in advance, by reference to: (i) a typical person with a typical diet with the typical abilities of such a person to modify their diet; or (ii) a typical sufferer of the Indicated Condition, with the diet typical of such a sufferer, and the ability to modify diet typical of such a sufferer; or (iii) some other assumed set of patient characteristics? |
| --- | --- | --- |

b.

Is such potential for modification of the normal diet (and, if relevant, are considerations of safety and practicability) to be assessed:

(i)

Generically, and in advance, by reference to: (i) a typical person with a typical diet with the typical abilities of such a person to modify their diet; or (ii) a typical sufferer of the Indicated Condition, with the diet typical of such a sufferer, and the ability to modify diet typical of such a sufferer; or (iii) some other assumed set of patient characteristics?

| (ii) | Individually and in the course of patient treatment, using the clinical judgment of the supervising clinician, such that it is enough if a manufacturer reasonably intends the product to be clinically useful because a supervising clinician may come to decide on reasonable patient-specific grounds (for instance, on patient-specific safety or practicability grounds) that the use of a FSMP may be clinically preferable to other forms of diet modification for some patients with the Indicated Condition? Or |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Individually and in the course of patient treatment, using the clinical judgment of the supervising clinician, such that it is enough if a manufacturer reasonably intends the product to be clinically useful because a supervising clinician may come to decide on reasonable patient-specific grounds (for instance, on patient-specific safety or practicability grounds) that the use of a FSMP may be clinically preferable to other forms of diet modification for some patients with the Indicated Condition? Or

| (iii) | Otherwise, and if so how? |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Otherwise, and if so how?

| c. | Does ‘modification of the normal diet’ include the use of ‘food supplements’ within the meaning of Directive 2002/46/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements, or of ‘fortified foods’ falling within Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods? |
| --- | --- |

c.

Does ‘modification of the normal diet’ include the use of ‘food supplements’ within the meaning of Directive 2002/46/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements, or of ‘fortified foods’ falling within Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods?

| d. | Where a patient group suffering from a particular disease, disorder or other medical condition has difficulty remembering to eat a normal diet unless prompted, is a product designed to facilitate the consumption by such patients of nutrients which would form part of the normal diet capable of being a dietary food for medical purposes within Commission Directive 1999/21/EC on dietary foods for special medical purposes? |
| --- | --- |

d.

Where a patient group suffering from a particular disease, disorder or other medical condition has difficulty remembering to eat a normal diet unless prompted, is a product designed to facilitate the consumption by such patients of nutrients which would form part of the normal diet capable of being a dietary food for medical purposes within Commission Directive 1999/21/EC on dietary foods for special medical purposes?

---

(1)  OJ L 91, p. 29.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against K.B.

(Case C-458/15)

(2015/C 354/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Party to the main proceedings

K.B.

Question referred

Is the placing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period from 11 August 2007 to 27 November 2009 (inclusive) resulting in particular from Council Decisions 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 (2), 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 (3), 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 (4), 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 (5), and Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 (6) illegal?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

(2)  OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58.

(3)  OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100.

(4)  OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.

(5)  OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25.

(6)  OJ 2009 L 151, p. 14.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/27

---

Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-468/15 P)

(2015/C 354/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare this appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare this appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 June 2015 in case PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, T-26/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 June 2015 in case PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, T-26/12;

| — | give final judgment, upholding PT Musim Mas’ claims before the General Court and, accordingly, annul the antidumping duty imposed on the Appellant under Council Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1138/2011 (1) of 8 November 2011 imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2012 (2) of 11 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 1138/2011, |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment, upholding PT Musim Mas’ claims before the General Court and, accordingly, annul the antidumping duty imposed on the Appellant under Council Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1138/2011 (1) of 8 November 2011 imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2012 (2) of 11 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 1138/2011,

| — | order the Council and the interveners, in addition to paying their own costs, to bear all costs occasioned to the Appellants in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council and the interveners, in addition to paying their own costs, to bear all costs occasioned to the Appellants in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the four grounds of appeal summarized below.

Firstly, the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by wrongly applying the single economic entity (‘SEE’) concept and concluding that the Appellant and ICOFS do not form a SEE.

Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the Council sufficiently demonstrated that the functions carried out by ICOFS were similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. The General Court carried out an insufficient and discriminatory reasoning on the basis of the evidence available.

Thirdly, the General Court infringed the first subparagraph of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the Council did not unduly affect the symmetry between the normal value and the export price.

Fourthly, the General Court misapplied the principle of good administration by erroneously accepting that the Council used only the Council’s evidence while ignoring relevant evidence and information presented before it by the Appellant throughout the anti-dumping investigation.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2012 L 352, p. 1.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-257/15) (1)

(2015/C 354/30)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/29

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniele Striani, Mad Management SPRL, Franck Boucher and Others, RFC. Seresien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)

(Case C-299/15) (1)

(2015/C 354/31)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

---

General Court

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-30/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger and M. Zöbisch, 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 11 November 2013 (Case R 1749/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a grey background)

(Case T-77/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a grey background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2013 (Case R 704/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a grey background.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)

(Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14) (1)

((Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer - Technical examination - Distinctiveness - Test guidelines - Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO))

(2015/C 354/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervening before the General Court: Brookfield New Zealand Limited (Havelock North, New Zealand); and Elaris SNC (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Eller, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against two decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 20 September 2013 (Cases A 004/2007 and A 003/2007) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a blue background)

(Case T-94/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a blue background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2013 (Case R 495/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a blue background.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a yellow background)

(Case T-143/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a yellow background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2013 (Case R 703/2013-2) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a yellow background.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on an ivory background)

(Case T-144/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on an ivory background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2014 (Case R 705/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on an ivory background.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET)

(Case T-321/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark STREET - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 2025/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign STREET as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-568/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/39)

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 120/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

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 COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-569/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/40)

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 122/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)

(Case T-571/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/42)

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 125/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA)

(Case T-572/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/43)

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 527/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)

(Case T-608/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/44)

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: D. Walicka and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 121/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)

(Case T-609/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/45)

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: D. Walicka and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 123/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO organic)

(Case T-610/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO organic - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/46)

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: D. Walicka and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 301/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO organic as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/39

---

Order of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-441/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Right to property - Right to respect for private life - Proportionality - Force of res judicata - Time-limit for bringing an action - Admissibility - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 354/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eyad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 July 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Mr Eyad Makhlouf shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Eyad Makhlouf shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/40

---

Order of the General Court of 27 August 2015 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)

(Case T-523/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - Correction of the decision concluding the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 354/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Squeeze Life, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Evolution Fresh, Inc. (San Bernardino, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2014 (Case R 595/2014-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Squeeze Life, SL and Evolution Fresh, Inc.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Squeeze Life, SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Squeeze Life, SL.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/40

---

Action brought on 27 August 2015 — Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus v OHIM — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)

(Case T-495/15)

(2015/C 354/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus (Pulpí, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spanish Oranges, SL (Castellón, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN’ — Application for registration No 11 290 293

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2015 in Case R 871/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | refuse the application of the trademark at issue for all goods covered in classes 29 and 31; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse the application of the trademark at issue for all goods covered in classes 29 and 31;

| — | order the Intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Intervener to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

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

—

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

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/41

---

Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMILE)

(Case T-499/15)

(2015/C 354/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY SMILE’ — Application for registration No 9 125 601

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Joined Cases R 1565/2014-2 and R 1939/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

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

—

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

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/42

---

Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO)

(Case T-500/15)

(2015/C 354/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY PRO’ — Application for registration No 9 125 071

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Case R 1940/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

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

—

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

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/43

---

Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Aranynektár v OHIM — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal)

(Case T-503/15)

(2015/C 354/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi kft (Dunavarsány, Hungary) (represented by: I. Molnár, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Naturval Apícola, SL (Monserrat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Natür-bal’ — Application for registration No 11 374 841

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2015 in Case R 1158/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present application (action); |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present application (action);

| — | alter the contested decision, reject the appeal made by the opponent against the decision of the Opposition Division (decision No B 2 156 383 dated 5 March 2014) and uphold the said decision of the Opposition Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision, reject the appeal made by the opponent against the decision of the Opposition Division (decision No B 2 156 383 dated 5 March 2014) and uphold the said decision of the Opposition Division;

| — | condemn the opponent to bear the costs and fees of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the opponent to bear the costs and fees of the proceedings.

Plea(s) in law

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

—

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

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/43

---

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Rafhaelo Gutti v OHIM — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA)

(Case T-504/15)

(2015/C 354/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Rafhaelo Gutti, SL (Loja, Spain) (represented by: I. L. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Transformados del Sur, SA (Seville, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA’ — Application for registration No 11 641 818

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2015 in Case R 2424/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 2424/2014-4, in turn annul Opposition B 2 226 655 and grant the application for Community trade mark 11 641 818 CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA for goods in Class 25 which have been refused registration. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 2424/2014-4, in turn annul Opposition B 2 226 655 and grant the application for Community trade mark 11 641 818 CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA for goods in Class 25 which have been refused registration.

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/44

---

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-507/15)

(2015/C 354/54)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) No 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 4076) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the amounts of EUR 1 42  446,05 and EUR 5 5 3 75  053,74 paid by the accredited paying agency of the Republic of Poland; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) No 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 4076) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the amounts of EUR 1 42  446,05 and EUR 5 5 3 75  053,74 paid by the accredited paying agency of the Republic of Poland;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) and breach of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations by applying a financial correction on the basis of incorrect findings of fact and incorrect interpretation of the law, even though the expenditure was carried out by the Polish authorities in accordance with the EU provisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) and breach of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations by applying a financial correction on the basis of incorrect findings of fact and incorrect interpretation of the law, even though the expenditure was carried out by the Polish authorities in accordance with the EU provisions.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 by applying a flat-rate correction in an amount grossly disproportionate to the risk of possible financial loss to the EU budget. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 by applying a flat-rate correction in an amount grossly disproportionate to the risk of possible financial loss to the EU budget.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/45

---

Action brought on 3 September 2015 — Kessel medintim v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Premeno)

(Case T-509/15)

(2015/C 354/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kessel medintim GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Jacob and U. Staudenmaier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Premeno’ — Application No 6 408 926

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2015 in Case R 349/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition;

| — | in the alternative: refer the opposition back to OHIM for a new decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: refer the opposition back to OHIM for a new decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the cost of the proceedings in accordance with Article 134(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the cost of the proceedings in accordance with Article 134(1) TFEU.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/46

---

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Mengozzi v OHIM — Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)

(Case T-510/15)

(2015/C 354/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Mengozzi (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: T. Schuffenecker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano IGP (Florence, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘TOSCORO’/Community trade mark No 2 752 509

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2015 in Case R 322/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partly uphold the contested decision and annul that part of the decision which invalidated the CTM registration for the goods ‘Edible oils fats; edible vegetable oils, notably olive oils’ as well as ‘green and black olive creams’; |
| --- | --- |

—

partly uphold the contested decision and annul that part of the decision which invalidated the CTM registration for the goods ‘Edible oils fats; edible vegetable oils, notably olive oils’ as well as ‘green and black olive creams’;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(k) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 6(1) of Regulation EU No. 1151/2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(k) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 6(1) of Regulation EU No. 1151/2012;

| — | Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1151/2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1151/2012;

| — | Infringement of Article 15 of TRIPS Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15 of TRIPS Agreement.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/47

---

Action brought on 4 September 2015 — Sun Cali v OHIM — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)

(Case T-512/15)

(2015/C 354/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Cali, Inc. (Denver, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Abercrombie & Fitch Europe SA (Mendrisio, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SUN CALI’ — Community trade mark No 5 482 369

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Cases R 1260/2014-5 and R 1281/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and order the (potential) intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and order the (potential) intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| — | set a date for an oral hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

set a date for an oral hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an oral hearing.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in Case T-1260/2014-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in Case T-1260/2014-5;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in case T-1281/2014-5. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in case T-1281/2014-5.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/48

---

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Map)

(Case T-513/15)

(2015/C 354/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze und G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Limbic® Map’ — Application for registration No 12 316 411

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2015 in Case R 1973/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 411 Limbic® Map; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 411 Limbic® Map;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/48

---

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Types)

(Case T-516/15)

(2015/C 354/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze und G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Limbic® Types’ — Application for registration No 12 316 469

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2015 in Case R 1974/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 469 Limbic® Types; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 469 Limbic® Types;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/49

---

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Sales)

(Case T-517/15)

(2015/C 354/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze und G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Limbic® Sales’ — Application for registration No 12 316 493

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2015 in Case R 1972/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 493 Limbic® Sales; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 493 Limbic® Sales;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/50

---

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — France v Commission

(Case T-518/15)

(2015/C 354/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. De Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4076 final of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure of the French Republic incurred under the Compensatory allowance for natural handicaps aid and under the cattle-farmers’ agro-environmental premium with regard to Axis 2 of Metropolitan France’s rural development programme for the financial years of 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the amount of the aid paid pursuant to requests made in the years in which it was promoted of 2011, 2012 and 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4076 final of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure of the French Republic incurred under the Compensatory allowance for natural handicaps aid and under the cattle-farmers’ agro-environmental premium with regard to Axis 2 of Metropolitan France’s rural development programme for the financial years of 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the amount of the aid paid pursuant to requests made in the years in which it was promoted of 2011, 2012 and 2013;

| — | in the alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it includes the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it includes the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction;

| — | in the further alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4(1), 10(1) and 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 (1) and Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) since the Commission found that the applicant had failed to comply with its obligations to check stocking rates on the basis that it had not counted the animals during on-the-spot checks and on the basis that the animals were not made ‘the subject of a plausible calculation’ during on-the-spot checks. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4(1), 10(1) and 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 (1) and Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) since the Commission found that the applicant had failed to comply with its obligations to check stocking rates on the basis that it had not counted the animals during on-the-spot checks and on the basis that the animals were not made ‘the subject of a plausible calculation’ during on-the-spot checks.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that, in the contested decision, the Commission unlawfully included the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that, in the contested decision, the Commission unlawfully included the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction.

| 3. | Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging failure to take full account of the rules set out in Annex 2 Annex 2 to Document VI/5330/97 (3) and Communication AGRI/60637/2006 (4) since the Commission applied a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging failure to take full account of the rules set out in Annex 2 Annex 2 to Document VI/5330/97 (3) and Communication AGRI/60637/2006 (4) since the Commission applied a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

(3)  Commission Document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 on guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of EAGGF Guarantee.

(4)  Commission Communication No AGRI/60637/2006 final on the calculation of the Commission of financial consequences when clearing EAGGF accounts, repeated shortcomings in safeguards.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/51

---

Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Filip Mikulik against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Mikulik v Council

(Case T-520/15 P)

(2015/C 354/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Filip Mikulik (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Filip Mikulik v Council of the European Union and itself give judgment in the matter; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Filip Mikulik v Council of the European Union and itself give judgment in the matter;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eight pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and of overarching principles of law such as the principle of good administration and principle of equal treatment, in so far as the General instructions on the preparation of staff reports, concerning the general implementing provisions on reports, are not applicable by analogy to the procedure for appraising the performance of a probationary official at the time of his establishment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and of overarching principles of law such as the principle of good administration and principle of equal treatment, in so far as the General instructions on the preparation of staff reports, concerning the general implementing provisions on reports, are not applicable by analogy to the procedure for appraising the performance of a probationary official at the time of his establishment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) considered that the third company whose consultant was involved in the process of evaluating the official had not seen his position consolidate within the Council. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) considered that the third company whose consultant was involved in the process of evaluating the official had not seen his position consolidate within the Council.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of the case-law concerning Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the duty of care, as the CST found that the probationary period and the appraisal had taken place under normal conditions, although the applicant had been supervised and evaluated by external consultants and did not have the benefit of mentoring. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of the case-law concerning Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the duty of care, as the CST found that the probationary period and the appraisal had taken place under normal conditions, although the applicant had been supervised and evaluated by external consultants and did not have the benefit of mentoring.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the Council did not apply in the present case the rules concerning mentoring set out in the internal guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the Council did not apply in the present case the rules concerning mentoring set out in the internal guidelines.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the CST considered that mentoring and micromanagement were not two separate concepts on the basis of the internal guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the CST considered that mentoring and micromanagement were not two separate concepts on the basis of the internal guidelines.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, as the CST found that the failure to send the first opinion to the line management was not contrary to that article. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, as the CST found that the failure to send the first opinion to the line management was not contrary to that article.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the CST did not check if the opinion of the Reports Committee had been communicated to the line management on time. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the CST did not check if the opinion of the Reports Committee had been communicated to the line management on time.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, as the CST found that it could not assume the role of the institution in the appraisal of the applicant’s performance. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, as the CST found that it could not assume the role of the institution in the appraisal of the applicant’s performance.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/52

---

Action brought on 10 September 2015 — CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case T-522/15)

(2015/C 354/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox group SpA (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Poliemme Srl (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox Hispania, SL (Lorca, Spain), Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Bariatti and E. Cucchiara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the fine imposed on the applicants; or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the fine imposed on the applicants; or

| — | in the alternative, reduce the amount of that fine; and, in any event |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the amount of that fine; and, in any event

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision No C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, concerning the infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers on the grounds of failure to investigate adequately and to state reasons concerning the effects of the infringement.






  — | The applicants claim in that respect that the conduct at issue has not taken place in practice, as is clear from the documents relating to the investigation and as even the Commission acknowledged in the contested decision. That situation should have been duly taken into consideration in the overall assessment of the severity of the infringements and, accordingly, when determining the applicable fines. However, that aspect is not taken into consideration in the contested decision. Nor are any reasons given in that regard. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers on the grounds of failure to investigate adequately and to state reasons concerning the effects of the infringement.

—

The applicants claim in that respect that the conduct at issue has not taken place in practice, as is clear from the documents relating to the investigation and as even the Commission acknowledged in the contested decision. That situation should have been duly taken into consideration in the overall assessment of the severity of the infringements and, accordingly, when determining the applicable fines. However, that aspect is not taken into consideration in the contested decision. Nor are any reasons given in that regard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and adequacy in determining the basic amount of the penalty.






  — | The applicants maintain in that respect that, for the purposes of calculating the basic amount of the fine, the value of the sales made in the last year of participation in the infringement was taken into consideration in the contested decision, even though that value did not actually represent the true market strength of the applicants and the other parties to the proceedings. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and adequacy in determining the basic amount of the penalty.

—

The applicants maintain in that respect that, for the purposes of calculating the basic amount of the fine, the value of the sales made in the last year of participation in the infringement was taken into consideration in the contested decision, even though that value did not actually represent the true market strength of the applicants and the other parties to the proceedings.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.






  — | The applicants maintain in that respect that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure:






  — | includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

—

The applicants maintain in that respect that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure:

—

includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company;

| — | includes the turnover generated by an entity that was no longer part of the CCPL group at the time of the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

includes the turnover generated by an entity that was no longer part of the CCPL group at the time of the decision;

| — | does not take any account of any specific circumstances concerning the breakdown of the turnover attributed to the CCPL group. |
| --- | --- |

—

does not take any account of any specific circumstances concerning the breakdown of the turnover attributed to the CCPL group.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty.






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that the serious crisis facing the packaging sector was not taken into account in the least in the contested decision and that the fine imposed on the applicants is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty.

—

The applicants claim in that regard that the serious crisis facing the packaging sector was not taken into account in the least in the contested decision and that the fine imposed on the applicants is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringment by the European Commission of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, on the ground that it took into account only partially the evidence concerning inability to pay adduced by the CCPL group.






  — | The contested decision, although recognising the very serious crisis faced by the applicants, did not take that sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringment by the European Commission of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, on the ground that it took into account only partially the evidence concerning inability to pay adduced by the CCPL group.

—

The contested decision, although recognising the very serious crisis faced by the applicants, did not take that sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/53

---

Action brought on 10 September 2015 — Italmobiliare and Others v Commission

(Case T-523/15)

(2015/C 354/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Italmobiliare SpA (Milan, Italy), Sirap-Gema SpA (Verolanuova, Italy), Sirap France SAS (Noves, France), Petruzalek GmbH (Tattendorf, Austria), Petruzalek kft (Budapest, Hungary), Petruzalek s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), Petruzalek s.r.o. (Břeclav, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and A. Bardanzellu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | first, obtain of its own motion an expert report in respect of the economic analysis of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

first, obtain of its own motion an expert report in respect of the economic analysis of the case;

| — | annul the decision to the extent that it considered that the benefit of immunity from the penalties referred to in the Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (‘the Notice’) applies to Linpac; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to the extent that it considered that the benefit of immunity from the penalties referred to in the Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (‘the Notice’) applies to Linpac;

| — | annul the decision in so far as it also attributed the conduct penalised to Italmobiliare, and ordered it, jointly and severally, to pay the fines; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision in so far as it also attributed the conduct penalised to Italmobiliare, and ordered it, jointly and severally, to pay the fines;

| — | reduce the amounts of the penalties imposed; |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the amounts of the penalties imposed;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision also contested in Case T-522/15, CCPL and Others v Commission.

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of the Notice and the principle of equal treatment in so far as the Commission granted immunity to Linpac even though the necessary conditions set out in the Notice itself were not fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the Notice and the principle of equal treatment in so far as the Commission granted immunity to Linpac even though the necessary conditions set out in the Notice itself were not fulfilled.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty, the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the principle of presumption of innocence referred to in Articles 6(2) and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the fundamental right of property referred to in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, Article 14 of the Convention and Articles 17 and 21 of the Charter, as well as infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, in so far as the Commission erred in considering Italmobiliare jointly and severally responsible as the parent company for the conduct of companies under its control. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty, the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the principle of presumption of innocence referred to in Articles 6(2) and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the fundamental right of property referred to in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, Article 14 of the Convention and Articles 17 and 21 of the Charter, as well as infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, in so far as the Commission erred in considering Italmobiliare jointly and severally responsible as the parent company for the conduct of companies under its control.

| 3. | Third plea in law: infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘the Guidelines’) and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in relation to determining the following elements/parameters when calculating the penalties: (i) sales value; (ii) amount according to severity; (iii) entry fee; (iv) adjustments to the basic amount (in particular, failure to take into consideration the crisis facing the sector); (v) the maximum statutory threshold under Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and (vi) insufficient reduction in penalties owing to the length of the proceedings; and finally infringement of Article 101 TFEU of the guidelines and failure to state reasons in relation to the failure to grant the request to apply point 35 of those guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘the Guidelines’) and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in relation to determining the following elements/parameters when calculating the penalties: (i) sales value; (ii) amount according to severity; (iii) entry fee; (iv) adjustments to the basic amount (in particular, failure to take into consideration the crisis facing the sector); (v) the maximum statutory threshold under Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and (vi) insufficient reduction in penalties owing to the length of the proceedings; and finally infringement of Article 101 TFEU of the guidelines and failure to state reasons in relation to the failure to grant the request to apply point 35 of those guidelines.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the applicants claim that, on the basis of Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 the General Court of the European Union should exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and, even if the above pleas in law are rejected, replace the Commission’s assessment with its own and, in any event, reduce all the fines imposed in the decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: the applicants claim that, on the basis of Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 the General Court of the European Union should exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and, even if the above pleas in law are rejected, replace the Commission’s assessment with its own and, in any event, reduce all the fines imposed in the decision.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/55

---

Action brought on 16 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-103/15)

(2015/C 354/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to withhold the sum of EUR 14  207,60 from the applicant’s pension by way of reimbursement of costs relating to hospital treatment received by his wife, as a consequence of the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal annulling the Commission’s initial decision that the applicant should bear all the hospital costs deemed excessive.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, in breach of the ruling given by the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 May 2013 and for all the reasons set out in the body of the application, the European Commission unlawfully withheld from the applicant’s pension the sum of EUR 14  207,60; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, in breach of the ruling given by the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 May 2013 and for all the reasons set out in the body of the application, the European Commission unlawfully withheld from the applicant’s pension the sum of EUR 14  207,60;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of reimbursement of the amount unduly withheld, the sum of EUR 14  207,60, together with default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of reimbursement of the amount unduly withheld, the sum of EUR 14  207,60, together with default interest;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/55

---

Action brought on 31 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-111/15)

(2015/C 354/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant and his spouse reimbursement of the costs concerning three invoices for medical treatment and treatment relating to the cancer from which she is suffering.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision refusing reimbursement of itemised accounts 67, 68 and 72 concerning the healthcare expenses incurred by the applicant’s spouse; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision refusing reimbursement of itemised accounts 67, 68 and 72 concerning the healthcare expenses incurred by the applicant’s spouse;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/56

---

Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-119/15)

(2015/C 354/67)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken in execution of a judgment of the General Court, confirming the refusal to grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and offering him a lump sum in an amount which, according to the applicant, is not sufficient to compensate him for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to execute the judgments of the General Court.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014;

| — | Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/56

---

Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-120/15)

(2015/C 354/68)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken in execution of a judgment of the General Court, confirming the refusal to grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and offering him a lump sum in an amount which, according to the applicant, is not sufficient to compensate him for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to execute the judgments of the General Court.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014;

| — | Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/57

---

Action brought on 21 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-121/15)

(2015/C 354/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the post advertised in the vacancy notice COM/2014/2036, on the basis of the failure to comply with the condition requiring a six-month break between contracts prior to the recruitment of a member of staff who has previously been employed under a contract at grade AT2c, as provided for in note D(2005)18064 of 28 July 2005 of DG HR, and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 22 May 2014 in which DG HR prevented the recruitment of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 22 May 2014 in which DG HR prevented the recruitment of the applicant;

| — | annul, so far as necessary, the decision of 14 November 2014 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as necessary, the decision of 14 November 2014 rejecting the complaint;

| — | order compensation in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions, estimated, subject to being re-evaluated in the future, at EUR 3 26  275, that compensation to be paid together with indexed default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions, estimated, subject to being re-evaluated in the future, at EUR 3 26  275, that compensation to be paid together with indexed default interest;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/57

---

Action brought on 22 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-122/15)

(2015/C 354/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision transferring the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIP) for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Annul the decision of 6 January 2015 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired prior to his entry to the service pursuant to the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 6 January 2015 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired prior to his entry to the service pursuant to the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---