# Official Journal C 429/21 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 429 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5821 December 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 429

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5821 December 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 429/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2015/C 429/01

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

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2015/C 429/02 | Case C-8/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell — Spain) — BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA v Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Enforcement proceedings — Opposition — Time-limits) | 2 |
| 2015/C 429/03 | Case C-78/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contracts relating to EU financial support granted to the Perform and Oasis projects) — Irregularities identified during audits of other projects — Decision of the Commission to suspend reimbursement of the amounts advanced by the recipient — Eligible costs — Distortions of the documents on the file) | 3 |
| 2015/C 429/04 | Case C-174/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos da Saúde dos Açores SA v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 13(1) — Treatment as a non-taxable person — Concept of body governed by public law — Limited company which is responsible for the provision of services in respect of the planning and management of the health service of the Autonomous Region of the Azores — Determination of the detailed arrangements for those services, including their remuneration, in programme agreements concluded between that company and that region) | 3 |
| 2015/C 429/05 | Case C-319/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — B&S Global Transit Center BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Articles 203 and 204 — External Community transit procedure — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Articles 365, 366 and 859 — Incurrence of a customs debt — Whether or not goods are unlawfully removed from customs supervision — Non-fulfilment of an obligation — Failure to end the transit procedure — Removal of the goods from the customs territory of the European Union) | 4 |
| 2015/C 429/06 | Case C-490/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9/EC — Article 1(2) — Scope — Databases — Topographic maps — Independence of materials constituting a database — Possibility of separating those materials without affecting the value of their informative content — Account taken of the purpose of a topographic map for the user) | 5 |
| 2015/C 429/07 | Case C-583/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 18 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Road use — Drivers resident in the Member State concerned — Requirement to provide on the spot proof of lawful use of vehicles registered in another Member State at a police check) | 6 |
| 2015/C 429/08 | Case C-589/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Interest payable on unsecured debts — Withholding tax — Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in Belgium — Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in another Member State or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement — Difference in treatment — Burden of proof — Interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities — Imposition of such interest where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a third State party to the EEA Agreement — Exemption where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium) | 6 |
| 2015/C 429/09 | Case C-93/15 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação v European Commission (Appeal — Aid granted by the Republic of Portugal in favour of a financial institution in the form of a State guarantee underwriting a loan — Decision declaring the State aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded) | 7 |
| 2015/C 429/10 | Case C-33/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-153/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM | 8 |
| 2015/C 429/11 | Case C-34/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-154/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM | 8 |
| 2015/C 429/12 | Case C-496/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Alphonse Eschenbrenner v Bundesagentur für Arbeit | 8 |
| 2015/C 429/13 | Case C-526/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, Other parties: Uber NV and Others | 9 |
| 2015/C 429/14 | Case C-531/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2015 — Elda Otero Ramos v Servizo Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social | 10 |
| 2015/C 429/15 | Case C-532/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 9 October 2015 — Eurosaneamientos, S.L. and Others v ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, S.A. | 11 |
| 2015/C 429/16 | Case C-538/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Spain) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser, S.A. | 12 |
| 2015/C 429/17 | Case C-544/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 13 |
| | General Court |
| 2015/C 429/18 | Case T-134/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection) | 14 |
| 2015/C 429/19 | Case T-253/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission (State aid — Sale and leasing of land and a production site — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery thereof — No competitive tendering procedure — Determination of the market price — Private investor test — Effect on trade between Member States) | 15 |
| 2015/C 429/20 | Case T-96/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Rot Front v OHIM — Rakhat (Маcка) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Маcка — Unregistered earlier national figurative mark Маcка — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application by OHIM of national law) | 15 |
| 2015/C 429/21 | Case T-110/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Lithuania v Commission (Community assistance programme for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe (SAPARD) — Financing by the European Union of certain expenditure incurred by Lithuania — Commission decision requiring Lithuania to reimburse part of the amount paid — Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 — Reference to the principles established by Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Scope of the multiannual financing agreement concerning the SAPARD programme — Sincere cooperation) | 16 |
| 2015/C 429/22 | Case T-126/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Direct Way and Directway Worldwide v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Transport for Members of the European Parliament — Decision to declare unsuccessful and to close the tendering procedure and to initiate a negotiated procedure — Award of contract to another tenderer — Equal treatment — Substantial change to the original conditions of the contract) | 17 |
| 2015/C 429/23 | Case T-517/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández (QUO VADIS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark QUO VADIS — Earlier national word mark QUO VADIS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 18 |
| 2015/C 429/24 | Case T-21/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SANDTER 1953 — Earlier national word mark Sander — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal of registration — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 18 |
| 2015/C 429/25 | Case T-199/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission (Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of insurance services for property and persons — Rejection of a tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Equal treatment — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Non-contractual liability — Loss of an opportunity — Interim judgment) | 19 |
| 2015/C 429/26 | Case T-256/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 –Giuntoli v OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé SA (CREMERIA TOSCANA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark CREMERIA TOSCANA — Earlier international figurative mark la Cremeria — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 20 |
| 2015/C 429/27 | Case T-290/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Portnov v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is well-founded) | 21 |
| 2015/C 429/28 | Case T-334/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Single control handle faucet) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a single control handle faucet — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No scope for innovation — Different Overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 22 |
| 2015/C 429/29 | Case T-736/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark MoMo Monsters — Earlier Community word marks MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY and earlier international figurative mark MONSTER ENERGY — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 23 |
| 2015/C 429/30 | Case T-124/10: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 23 |
| 2015/C 429/31 | Case T-315/14: Order of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik) (Community trade mark — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the registration — No need to adjudicate) | 24 |
| 2015/C 429/32 | Case T-721/14: Order of the General Court of 27 October 2015 — Belgium v Commission (Action for annulment — Online gambling services — Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online — Commission Recommendation — Act not subject to review — Inadmissibility) | 25 |
| 2015/C 429/33 | Case T-60/15: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Dermogen Farma (ETERN JUVENTUS) (Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Restriction of the services applied for — no need to adjudicate) | 26 |
| 2015/C 429/34 | Case T-80/15 P: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Macchia v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Interest of the service — Duty of care — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 26 |
| 2015/C 429/35 | Case T-288/15: Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Ezz and Others v Council | 27 |
| 2015/C 429/36 | Case T-601/15: Action brought on 22 October 2015 — CEVA v Commission | 28 |
| 2015/C 429/37 | Case T-27/13: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Elan v Commission | 29 |
| 2015/C 429/38 | Case T-28/13: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture) | 29 |
| 2015/C 429/39 | Case T-260/13: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Ryanair v Commission | 29 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2015/C 429/40 | Case F-41/15 DISS I: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FL, FM and FO v CEPOL | 30 |
| 2015/C 429/41 | Case F-55/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — HA v Commission | 30 |
| 2015/C 429/42 | Case F-80/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GK and GH v Commission | 30 |
| 2015/C 429/43 | Case F-81/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GM and GN v Commission | 30 |
| 2015/C 429/44 | Case F-105/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FM and FO v CEPOL | 31 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 429/02

Case C-8/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell — Spain) — BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA v Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Enforcement proceedings — Opposition — Time-limits)

2

2015/C 429/03

Case C-78/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contracts relating to EU financial support granted to the Perform and Oasis projects) — Irregularities identified during audits of other projects — Decision of the Commission to suspend reimbursement of the amounts advanced by the recipient — Eligible costs — Distortions of the documents on the file)

3

2015/C 429/04

Case C-174/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos da Saúde dos Açores SA v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 13(1) — Treatment as a non-taxable person — Concept of body governed by public law — Limited company which is responsible for the provision of services in respect of the planning and management of the health service of the Autonomous Region of the Azores — Determination of the detailed arrangements for those services, including their remuneration, in programme agreements concluded between that company and that region)

3

2015/C 429/05

Case C-319/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — B&S Global Transit Center BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Articles 203 and 204 — External Community transit procedure — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Articles 365, 366 and 859 — Incurrence of a customs debt — Whether or not goods are unlawfully removed from customs supervision — Non-fulfilment of an obligation — Failure to end the transit procedure — Removal of the goods from the customs territory of the European Union)

4

2015/C 429/06

Case C-490/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9/EC — Article 1(2) — Scope — Databases — Topographic maps — Independence of materials constituting a database — Possibility of separating those materials without affecting the value of their informative content — Account taken of the purpose of a topographic map for the user)

5

2015/C 429/07

Case C-583/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 18 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Road use — Drivers resident in the Member State concerned — Requirement to provide on the spot proof of lawful use of vehicles registered in another Member State at a police check)

6

2015/C 429/08

Case C-589/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Interest payable on unsecured debts — Withholding tax — Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in Belgium — Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in another Member State or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement — Difference in treatment — Burden of proof — Interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities — Imposition of such interest where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a third State party to the EEA Agreement — Exemption where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium)

6

2015/C 429/09

Case C-93/15 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação v European Commission (Appeal — Aid granted by the Republic of Portugal in favour of a financial institution in the form of a State guarantee underwriting a loan — Decision declaring the State aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

7

2015/C 429/10

Case C-33/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-153/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

Cantina Broglie 1

OHIM

8

2015/C 429/11

Case C-34/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-154/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

Cantina Broglie 1

OHIM

8

2015/C 429/12

Case C-496/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Alphonse Eschenbrenner v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

8

2015/C 429/13

Case C-526/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, Other parties: Uber NV and Others

9

2015/C 429/14

Case C-531/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2015 — Elda Otero Ramos v Servizo Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

10

2015/C 429/15

Case C-532/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 9 October 2015 — Eurosaneamientos, S.L. and Others v ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, S.A.

11

2015/C 429/16

Case C-538/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Spain) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser, S.A.

12

2015/C 429/17

Case C-544/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

13

General Court

2015/C 429/18

Case T-134/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection)

14

2015/C 429/19

Case T-253/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission (State aid — Sale and leasing of land and a production site — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery thereof — No competitive tendering procedure — Determination of the market price — Private investor test — Effect on trade between Member States)

15

2015/C 429/20

Case T-96/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Rot Front v OHIM — Rakhat (Маcка) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Маcка — Unregistered earlier national figurative mark Маcка — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application by OHIM of national law)

15

2015/C 429/21

Case T-110/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Lithuania v Commission (Community assistance programme for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe (SAPARD) — Financing by the European Union of certain expenditure incurred by Lithuania — Commission decision requiring Lithuania to reimburse part of the amount paid — Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 — Reference to the principles established by Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Scope of the multiannual financing agreement concerning the SAPARD programme — Sincere cooperation)

16

2015/C 429/22

Case T-126/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Direct Way and Directway Worldwide v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Transport for Members of the European Parliament — Decision to declare unsuccessful and to close the tendering procedure and to initiate a negotiated procedure — Award of contract to another tenderer — Equal treatment — Substantial change to the original conditions of the contract)

17

2015/C 429/23

Case T-517/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández (QUO VADIS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark QUO VADIS — Earlier national word mark QUO VADIS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

18

2015/C 429/24

Case T-21/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SANDTER 1953 — Earlier national word mark Sander — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal of registration — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

18

2015/C 429/25

Case T-199/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission (Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of insurance services for property and persons — Rejection of a tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Equal treatment — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Non-contractual liability — Loss of an opportunity — Interim judgment)

19

2015/C 429/26

Case T-256/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 –Giuntoli v OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé SA (CREMERIA TOSCANA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark CREMERIA TOSCANA — Earlier international figurative mark la Cremeria — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

20

2015/C 429/27

Case T-290/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Portnov v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is well-founded)

21

2015/C 429/28

Case T-334/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Single control handle faucet) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a single control handle faucet — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No scope for innovation — Different Overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

22

2015/C 429/29

Case T-736/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark MoMo Monsters — Earlier Community word marks MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY and earlier international figurative mark MONSTER ENERGY — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

23

2015/C 429/30

Case T-124/10: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

23

2015/C 429/31

Case T-315/14: Order of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik) (Community trade mark — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the registration — No need to adjudicate)

24

2015/C 429/32

Case T-721/14: Order of the General Court of 27 October 2015 — Belgium v Commission (Action for annulment — Online gambling services — Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online — Commission Recommendation — Act not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

25

2015/C 429/33

Case T-60/15: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Dermogen Farma (ETERN JUVENTUS) (Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Restriction of the services applied for — no need to adjudicate)

26

2015/C 429/34

Case T-80/15 P: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Macchia v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Interest of the service — Duty of care — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

26

2015/C 429/35

Case T-288/15: Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Ezz and Others v Council

27

2015/C 429/36

Case T-601/15: Action brought on 22 October 2015 — CEVA v Commission

28

2015/C 429/37

Case T-27/13: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Elan v Commission

29

2015/C 429/38

Case T-28/13: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture)

29

2015/C 429/39

Case T-260/13: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Ryanair v Commission

29

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2015/C 429/40

Case F-41/15 DISS I: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FL, FM and FO v CEPOL

30

2015/C 429/41

Case F-55/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — HA v Commission

30

2015/C 429/42

Case F-80/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GK and GH v Commission

30

2015/C 429/43

Case F-81/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GM and GN v Commission

30

2015/C 429/44

Case F-105/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FM and FO v CEPOL

31

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/1

---

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

(2015/C 429/01)

Last publication

OJ C 414, 14.12.2015

Past publications

OJ C 406, 7.12.2015

OJ C 398, 30.11.2015

OJ C 389, 23.11.2015

OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

OJ C 371, 9.11.2015

OJ C 363, 3.11.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell — Spain) — BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA v Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro

(Case C-8/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Mortgage loan agreement - Unfair terms - Enforcement proceedings - Opposition - Time-limits))

(2015/C 429/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA

Defendant: Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national transitional provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as regards mortgage enforcement proceedings which were instituted before the date of entry into force of the law of which that provision forms part and which were not concluded at that date, imposes a time-limit on consumers calculated from the day following the publication of that law, to object to enforcement on the basis of the alleged unfairness of contractual terms.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias

(Case C-78/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Contracts relating to EU financial support granted to the Perform and Oasis projects) - Irregularities identified during audits of other projects - Decision of the Commission to suspend reimbursement of the amounts advanced by the recipient - Eligible costs - Distortions of the documents on the file))

(2015/C 429/03)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, B. Conte and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, dikigoroi)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos da Saúde dos Açores SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-174/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 13(1) - Treatment as a non-taxable person - Concept of ‘body governed by public law’ - Limited company which is responsible for the provision of services in respect of the planning and management of the health service of the Autonomous Region of the Azores - Determination of the detailed arrangements for those services, including their remuneration, in programme agreements concluded between that company and that region))

(2015/C 429/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos da Saúde dos Açores SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(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 an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(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 an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, falls under the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person for value added tax purposes, laid down by that provision, in a situation where that activity constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, if, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it can be considered that that company must be classified as a body governed by public law and that it carries out that activity as a public authority, in so far as the referring court finds that the exemption of that activity is not such as to lead to significant distortions of competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, falls under the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person for value added tax purposes, laid down by that provision, in a situation where that activity constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, if, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it can be considered that that company must be classified as a body governed by public law and that it carries out that activity as a public authority, in so far as the referring court finds that the exemption of that activity is not such as to lead to significant distortions of competition.

In that context, the concept of ‘other bodies governed by public law’ within the meaning of Article 13(1) of that directive must not be interpreted by reference to the definition of ‘body governed by public law’ in Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — B&S Global Transit Center BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-319/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Articles 203 and 204 - External Community transit procedure - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Articles 365, 366 and 859 - Incurrence of a customs debt - Whether or not goods are unlawfully removed from customs supervision - Non-fulfilment of an obligation - Failure to end the transit procedure - Removal of the goods from the customs territory of the European Union))

(2015/C 429/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B&S Global Transit Center BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 203 and 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a failure to comply with the obligation to present goods placed under the external Community transit procedure at the customs office of destination leads to a customs debt being incurred on the basis not of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, but of Article 203 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, where the goods concerned have left the customs territory of the European Union and the holder under that procedure is unable to produce documents that comply with Article 365(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, in the version following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, or Article 366(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2454/93, in the version following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1192/2008 of 17 November 2008.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

(Case C-490/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal protection of databases - Directive 96/9/EC - Article 1(2) - Scope - Databases - Topographic maps - Independence of materials constituting a database - Possibility of separating those materials without affecting the value of their informative content - Account taken of the purpose of a topographic map for the user))

(2015/C 429/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant: Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that geographical information extracted from a topographic map by a third party so that that information may be used to produce and market another map retains, following its extraction, sufficient informative value to be classified as ‘independent materials’ of a ‘database’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

(Case C-583/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 18 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Road use - Drivers resident in the Member State concerned - Requirement to provide on the spot proof of lawful use of vehicles registered in another Member State at a police check))

(2015/C 429/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Benjámin Dávid Nagy

Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63(1) TFUE precludes national legislation under which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates issued by the Member State in question may be used on the road network in that Member State and under which, if a resident of that Member State seeks to rely on a derogation from that rule, on the grounds that he uses a vehicle made available to him by the keeper of that vehicle established in another Member State, he must be able to prove on the spot, during a police check, that he fulfils the conditions for such a derogation, as laid down by the national legislation in question, on pain of the immediate imposition of a fine equivalent to that applicable in the event of infringement of the registration requirement, without any possibility of an exemption from that fine.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-589/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Interest payable on unsecured debts - Withholding tax - Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in Belgium - Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in another Member State or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement - Difference in treatment - Burden of proof - Interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities - Imposition of such interest where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a third State party to the EEA Agreement - Exemption where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium))

(2015/C 429/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions according to which interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities are subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union other than the Kingdom of Belgium or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement, of 2 May 1992, although that interest in exempted from withholding tax where those securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions according to which interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities are subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union other than the Kingdom of Belgium or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement, of 2 May 1992, although that interest in exempted from withholding tax where those securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

| 2) | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3) | Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Belgium to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Belgium to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/7

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação v European Commission

(Case C-93/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Aid granted by the Republic of Portugal in favour of a financial institution in the form of a State guarantee underwriting a loan - Decision declaring the State aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded))

(2015/C 429/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellants: Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação (represented by: M. Ferreira Santos and R Leandro Vasconcelos, advogadas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. França and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Banco Privado Português SA and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Banco Privado Português SA and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/8

---

Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-153/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

(Case C-33/15 P)

(2015/C 429/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (represented by: A. Rizzoli, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona

By order of 15 October 2015 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to bear its own costs.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/8

---

Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-154/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

(Case C-34/15 P)

(2015/C 429/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (represented by: A. Rizzoli, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona

By order of 15 October 2015 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to bear its own costs.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Alphonse Eschenbrenner v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-496/15)

(2015/C 429/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alphonse Eschenbrenner

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law (in particular Article 45 TFEU (formerly Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1)), in the case of an employee who pursues an occupational activity in Germany, who is resident in another Member State and not subject to income tax liability in Germany, and for whom insolvency benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, that, in the event of his employer’s insolvency, the remuneration from employment used to calculate his insolvency benefit is subject to the notional taxation that would be charged as a deduction on his remuneration from employment were he subject to income tax liability in Germany, if he no longer has the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law (in particular Article 45 TFEU (formerly Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1)), in the case of an employee who pursues an occupational activity in Germany, who is resident in another Member State and not subject to income tax liability in Germany, and for whom insolvency benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, that, in the event of his employer’s insolvency, the remuneration from employment used to calculate his insolvency benefit is subject to the notional taxation that would be charged as a deduction on his remuneration from employment were he subject to income tax liability in Germany, if he no longer has the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative, can it be considered compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law if, in the circumstances described, the employee retains the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, can it be considered compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law if, in the circumstances described, the employee retains the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, Other parties: Uber NV and Others

(Case C-526/15)

(2015/C 429/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uber Belgium BVBA

Defendant: Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

Other parties to the proceedings: Uber NV and Others, Brusselse Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgische Federatie van Taxis, Nationale Groepering van Ondernemingen met Taxi- and Locatievoertuigen met Chauffeur VZW

Question referred

Should the principle of proportionality, laid down in Article 5 TEU and Article 52(1) of the Charter, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Charter and with Articles 28 TFEU and 56 TFEU, be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in the Ordonnantie van het Brusselse Hoofstedelijk Gewest van 27 april 1995 betreffende de taxidiensten voor het verhuren van voertuigen met vervoerder (Ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 27 April 1995 relating to taxis and services for the rental of vehicles with carrier), be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘taxi services’ (‘taxidiensten’) also applies to unpaid individual carriers who are involved in ride sharing (shared transport) by accepting ride requests which they are offered by means of a software application of the companies Uber BV et al established in another Member State?

---

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

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2015 — Elda Otero Ramos v Servizo Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

(Case C-531/15)

(2015/C 429/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elda Otero Ramos

Defendant: Servizo Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) applicable to the situation of risk during breastfeeding referred to in Article 26(4), in conjunction with Article 26(3), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which was adopted to transpose into Spanish law Article 5(3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) applicable to the situation of risk during breastfeeding referred to in Article 26(4), in conjunction with Article 26(3), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which was adopted to transpose into Spanish law Article 5(3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding?

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can the existence of risks to breastfeeding when working as a nurse in a hospital accident and emergency department, established by means of a report issued by a doctor who is also the director of the accident and emergency department of the hospital where the worker is employed, be considered to be facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can the existence of risks to breastfeeding when working as a nurse in a hospital accident and emergency department, established by means of a report issued by a doctor who is also the director of the accident and emergency department of the hospital where the worker is employed, be considered to be facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC?

| 3. | If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can the fact that the job performed by the worker is included in the list of risk-free jobs drawn up by the employer after consulting the workers’ representatives and the fact that the preventive medicine/prevention of occupational risks department of the hospital concerned has issued a declaration that the worker is fit for work, without those documents including any further information regarding how those conclusions were reached, be considered to prove, in every case and without possibility of challenge, that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment within the meaning of Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can the fact that the job performed by the worker is included in the list of risk-free jobs drawn up by the employer after consulting the workers’ representatives and the fact that the preventive medicine/prevention of occupational risks department of the hospital concerned has issued a declaration that the worker is fit for work, without those documents including any further information regarding how those conclusions were reached, be considered to prove, in every case and without possibility of challenge, that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment within the meaning of Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC?

| 4. | If question 2 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 is answered in the negative, which of the parties — the applicant worker or the defendant employer — has, in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC, the burden of proving, once it has been established that performance of the job creates risks to the mother or the breast-fed child, (1) that the adjustment of working conditions or working hours is not feasible or that, despite such adjustment, the working conditions are liable to have an adverse effect on the health of the pregnant worker or breast-fed child (Article 26(2), in conjunction with Article 26(4), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which transposes Article 5(2) of Directive 92/85/EEC), and (2) that it is not technically or objectively feasible to move the worker to another job or that such a move cannot reasonably be required on substantiated grounds (Article 26(3), in conjunction with Article 26(4), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which transposes Article 5(3) of Directive 92/85/EEC)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If question 2 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 is answered in the negative, which of the parties — the applicant worker or the defendant employer — has, in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC, the burden of proving, once it has been established that performance of the job creates risks to the mother or the breast-fed child, (1) that the adjustment of working conditions or working hours is not feasible or that, despite such adjustment, the working conditions are liable to have an adverse effect on the health of the pregnant worker or breast-fed child (Article 26(2), in conjunction with Article 26(4), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which transposes Article 5(2) of Directive 92/85/EEC), and (2) that it is not technically or objectively feasible to move the worker to another job or that such a move cannot reasonably be required on substantiated grounds (Article 26(3), in conjunction with Article 26(4), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which transposes Article 5(3) of Directive 92/85/EEC)?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 9 October 2015 — Eurosaneamientos, S.L. and Others v ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, S.A.

(Case C-532/15)

(2015/C 429/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eurosaneamientos, S.L., Entidad Urbanística Conservación Parque Tecnológico de reciclado López Soriano, UTE PTR Acciona Infraestructuras, S.A.

Defendant: ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the fact that there is a legal provision laid down by the State that requires State control in the fixing of the fees of procuradores, by means of rules setting the exact and mandatory amount of those fees, and conferring authority on the courts, in particular in the event of an order for costs, in each particular case to fix those costs subsequently, although that authority is limited to ensuring the strict application of the tariff without the possibility of departing, in exceptional cases and by way of a reasoned decision, from the limits set in the legal provision on tariffs consistent with Articles 4(3) [TEU] and 101 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the fact that there is a legal provision laid down by the State that requires State control in the fixing of the fees of procuradores, by means of rules setting the exact and mandatory amount of those fees, and conferring authority on the courts, in particular in the event of an order for costs, in each particular case to fix those costs subsequently, although that authority is limited to ensuring the strict application of the tariff without the possibility of departing, in exceptional cases and by way of a reasoned decision, from the limits set in the legal provision on tariffs consistent with Articles 4(3) [TEU] and 101 TFEU?

| 2. | Does the definition of the concepts ‘overriding reasons relating to the public interest’, ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’ in Articles [4] and [15] of the Directive on services in the internal market (1) as applied by the EU courts, allow the courts of the Member States, in circumstances where there is State regulation in relation to the fixing of fees and there is an implied declaration, in the absence of any rules in the implementing legislation, that there is an overriding reason relating to the public interest, although its inconsistency with EU case-law does not allow it to be upheld, to hold in a particular case that there is a limitation which is not in the public interest and, therefore, to disregard or to amend the legal provision imposing rules on the remuneration of procuradores? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the definition of the concepts ‘overriding reasons relating to the public interest’, ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’ in Articles [4] and [15] of the Directive on services in the internal market (1) as applied by the EU courts, allow the courts of the Member States, in circumstances where there is State regulation in relation to the fixing of fees and there is an implied declaration, in the absence of any rules in the implementing legislation, that there is an overriding reason relating to the public interest, although its inconsistency with EU case-law does not allow it to be upheld, to hold in a particular case that there is a limitation which is not in the public interest and, therefore, to disregard or to amend the legal provision imposing rules on the remuneration of procuradores?

| 3. | Is the application of a legal provision of that nature contrary to the right to a fair trial as defined by the EU courts? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the application of a legal provision of that nature contrary to the right to a fair trial as defined by the EU courts?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Spain) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser, S.A.

(Case C-538/15)

(2015/C 429/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesc de Bolós Pi

Defendant: Urbaser, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1) | Is Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 10 and Article 4(3) TEU, compatible with rules laid down in the regulation on the tariff applying to procuradores, namely Royal Decree 1373/2003 of 7 November 2003, which provides that their remuneration is subject to a minimum tariff or scale, which can be varied, upwards or downwards, only by 12 % and when it is impossible for the authorities of the Member State, including the courts, to depart from those minima even in exceptional circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 10 and Article 4(3) TEU, compatible with rules laid down in the regulation on the tariff applying to procuradores, namely Royal Decree 1373/2003 of 7 November 2003, which provides that their remuneration is subject to a minimum tariff or scale, which can be varied, upwards or downwards, only by 12 % and when it is impossible for the authorities of the Member State, including the courts, to depart from those minima even in exceptional circumstances?

| 2) | For the purpose of applying the abovementioned statutory scale without applying the minimum levels laid down therein: may the fact that the amount of fees payable under the scale is disproportionate to the work actually done be regarded as exceptional circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

2)

For the purpose of applying the abovementioned statutory scale without applying the minimum levels laid down therein: may the fact that the amount of fees payable under the scale is disproportionate to the work actually done be regarded as exceptional circumstances?

| 3) | Is Article 56 TFEU compatible with Royal Decree 1373/2006? |
| --- | --- |

3)

Is Article 56 TFEU compatible with Royal Decree 1373/2006?

| 4) | Does Royal Decree 1373/2006 meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality referred to in Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC? (1) |
| --- | --- |

4)

Does Royal Decree 1373/2006 meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality referred to in Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC? (1)

| 5) | Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights include the right to defend oneself properly in a situation in which the figure at which the fees of a procurador are set is disproportionately high and does not correspond to the work actually carried out? |
| --- | --- |

5)

Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights include the right to defend oneself properly in a situation in which the figure at which the fees of a procurador are set is disproportionately high and does not correspond to the work actually carried out?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-544/15)

(2015/C 429/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sahar Fahimian

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Other party to the proceedings: Stadt Darmstadt

Questions referred

| 1 | a. | Is Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the Member States are able to exercise a degree of discretion in examining whether a third-country national who applies to be admitted for the purposes set out in Articles 7 to 11 of that directive is regarded as a threat to public policy, public security or public health, as a result of which discretion the assessment by the authorities may be subject to only limited judicial review? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1

a.

Is Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the Member States are able to exercise a degree of discretion in examining whether a third-country national who applies to be admitted for the purposes set out in Articles 7 to 11 of that directive is regarded as a threat to public policy, public security or public health, as a result of which discretion the assessment by the authorities may be subject to only limited judicial review?

| b. | If Question 1a is answered in the affirmative:
  What are the legal limits placed on the competent authorities of the Member States when making the assessment that a third-country national who applies to be admitted for the purposes set out in Articles 7 to 11 of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service is to be regarded as a threat to public policy, public security or public health, particularly in view of the facts underlying that assessment and their evaluation? |
| --- | --- |

b.

If Question 1a is answered in the affirmative:

What are the legal limits placed on the competent authorities of the Member States when making the assessment that a third-country national who applies to be admitted for the purposes set out in Articles 7 to 11 of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service is to be regarded as a threat to public policy, public security or public health, particularly in view of the facts underlying that assessment and their evaluation?

| 2. | Independently of the answers to Questions 1a and 1b:
  Is Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are thereby empowered, in a case such as the present, in which a third-country national from Iran, who obtained her university degree from the Sharif University of Technology (Tehran) in Iran, which specialises in technology, engineering and physics, seeks entry for the purpose of taking up doctoral studies in the area of IT-security research within the framework of the ‘Trusted Embedded and Mobile Systems’ project, in particular the development of effective security mechanisms for smartphones, to deny entry to their territory, stating as grounds for this refusal that it could not be ruled out that the skills acquired in connection with the research project might be misused in Iran, for instance for the acquisition of sensitive information in Western countries, for the purpose of internal repression or more generally in connection with human rights violations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Independently of the answers to Questions 1a and 1b:

Is Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are thereby empowered, in a case such as the present, in which a third-country national from Iran, who obtained her university degree from the Sharif University of Technology (Tehran) in Iran, which specialises in technology, engineering and physics, seeks entry for the purpose of taking up doctoral studies in the area of IT-security research within the framework of the ‘Trusted Embedded and Mobile Systems’ project, in particular the development of effective security mechanisms for smartphones, to deny entry to their territory, stating as grounds for this refusal that it could not be ruled out that the skills acquired in connection with the research project might be misused in Iran, for instance for the acquisition of sensitive information in Western countries, for the purpose of internal repression or more generally in connection with human rights violations?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12.

---

General Court

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission

(Case T-134/11) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds - Fundamental rights - Right to effective judicial protection))

(2015/C 429/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih (Birmingham, United Kingdom); Ghunia Abdrabbah (Birmingham); Taher Nasuf (Manchester, United Kingdom) and Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (Birmingham) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Boelaert, M. Konstantinidis, E. Paasivirta and T. Scharf, and subsequently by M. Konstantinidis, E. Paasivirta and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by E. Finnegan, R. Szostak and G. Étienne, and subsequently by E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, acting as Agents) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by E. Jenkinson, and subsequently by L. Christie, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 140th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2010 L 322, p. 4), and of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 141st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2010 L 322, p. 6), in so far as those measures concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Mr Ghunia Abdrabbah and Mr Taher Nasuf to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Mr Ghunia Abdrabbah and Mr Taher Nasuf to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission

(Case T-253/12) (1)

((State aid - Sale and leasing of land and a production site - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery thereof - No competitive tendering procedure - Determination of the market price - Private investor test - Effect on trade between Member States))

(2015/C 429/19)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (Trollhättan, Sweden) (represented by: I. Otken Eriksson and U. Öberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents, assisted by L. Sandberg-Morch, lawyer)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2012/293/EU of 8 February 2012 on State aid SA.28809 (C 29/10) (ex NN 42/10 and ex CP 194/09) implemented by Sweden in favour of Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (OJ 2012 L 150, p. 78)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hammar Nordic Plugg AB to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hammar Nordic Plugg AB to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Rot Front v OHIM — Rakhat (Маcка)

(Case T-96/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Маcка - Unregistered earlier national figurative mark Маcка - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application by OHIM of national law))

(2015/C 429/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented initially by B. Térauda, and subsequently by O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rakhat AO (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Case R 893/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Rot Front OAO and Rakhat AO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 893/2012-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 893/2012-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Rot Front OAO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Rot Front OAO.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-110/13) (1)

((Community assistance programme for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe (SAPARD) - Financing by the European Union of certain expenditure incurred by Lithuania - Commission decision requiring Lithuania to reimburse part of the amount paid - Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 - Reference to the principles established by Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Scope of the multiannual financing agreement concerning the SAPARD programme - Sincere cooperation))

(2015/C 429/21)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, D. Skara and V. Čepaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, A. Steiblytė and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Principally, application for annulment of Decision No FK/fa/D(2012) 1707818 of the Commission of 10 December 2012 in so far as the debit note No 3241213460 attached to it relates to projects whose completion has been assigned to undertakings which have been placed in receivership and to Project P27010010.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Direct Way and Directway Worldwide v Parliament

(Case T-126/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Transport for Members of the European Parliament - Decision to declare unsuccessful and to close the tendering procedure and to initiate a negotiated procedure - Award of contract to another tenderer - Equal treatment - Substantial change to the original conditions of the contract))

(2015/C 429/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Direct Way (Machelen, Belgium) and Directway Worldwide (Machelen) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and P. Biström, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul three European Parliament decisions relating to awarding the contract for transport services for Members of the Parliament in Brussels.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Direct Way and Directway Worldwide to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Direct Way and Directway Worldwide to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández (‘QUO VADIS’)

(Case T-517/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ - Earlier national word mark QUO VADIS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 429/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Éditions Quo Vadis (Carquefou, France) (represented by: F. Valentin and J. Canlorbe, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Francisco Gómez Hernández (Jacarilla, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2013 (Case R 1166/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Francisco Gómez Hernández and Éditions Quo Vadis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Éditions Quo Vadis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Éditions Quo Vadis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)

(Case T-21/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SANDTER 1953 - Earlier national word mark Sander - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 429/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NetMed Sàrl (Wasserbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Schafhaus, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2013 (Case R 1846/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between NetMed Sàrl and Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders NetMed Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders NetMed Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission

(Case T-199/14) (1)

((Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of insurance services for property and persons - Rejection of a tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Equal treatment - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Non-contractual liability - Loss of an opportunity - Interim judgment))

(2015/C 429/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vanbreda Risk & Benefits (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented initially by: P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, then by P. Teerlinck, P. de Bandt and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and L. Cappelletti, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action for annulment of the decision of 30 January 2014 by which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 1 in the context of call for tenders No OIB.DR.2/PO/2013/062/591 relating to the insurance of property and persons (OJ 2013/S 155-269617) and awarded it to another company, and, second, an action for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 30 January 2014 by which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 1 in the context of call for tenders No OIB.DR.2/PO/2013/062/591 relating to the insurance of property and persons (OJ 2013/S 155-269617) and awarded Lot 1 to another company; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 30 January 2014 by which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 1 in the context of call for tenders No OIB.DR.2/PO/2013/062/591 relating to the insurance of property and persons (OJ 2013/S 155-269617) and awarded Lot 1 to another company;

| 2. | Orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by Vanbreda Risk & Benefits for the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the abovementioned contract and to obtain the corresponding references for the award of the contract; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by Vanbreda Risk & Benefits for the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the abovementioned contract and to obtain the corresponding references for the award of the contract;

| 3. | Dismisses the claim for compensation as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the claim for compensation as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the parties to inform the Court, within six months from the delivery of the present judgment, of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement for that loss suffered; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the parties to inform the Court, within six months from the delivery of the present judgment, of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement for that loss suffered;

| 5. | Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall transmit to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall transmit to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;

| 6. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 –Giuntoli v OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé SA (CREMERIA TOSCANA)

(Case T-256/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark CREMERIA TOSCANA - Earlier international figurative mark la Cremeria - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 429/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Giuntoli (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2014 (Case R 886/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Andrea Giuntoli.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Giuntoli to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Giuntoli to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Portnov v Council

(Case T-290/14) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is well-founded))

(2015/C 429/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andriy Portnov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J. P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1) and Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as they concern Andriy Portnov; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as they concern Andriy Portnov;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of Mr Portnov; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of Mr Portnov;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Single control handle faucet)

(Case T-334/14) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a single control handle faucet - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No scope for innovation - Different Overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2015/C 429/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Villeroy & Boch AG (Mettlach, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2014 (Case R 812/2012-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Villeroy & Boch AG and Roca Sanitario, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Roca Sanitario, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Roca Sanitario, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters)

(Case T-736/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark MoMo Monsters - Earlier Community word marks MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY and earlier international figurative mark MONSTER ENERGY - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 429/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Home Focus Development Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 (Case R 1167/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Home Focus Development Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/23

---

Order of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA)

(Case T-124/10) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 429/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx and M. Schaeffer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Vinotasia GmbH (Coblenz, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2010 (Case R 1054/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Vinotasia GmbH and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Vinotasia GmbH shall bear their own costs and each pay half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Vinotasia GmbH shall bear their own costs and each pay half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2015.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/24

---

Order of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik)

(Case T-315/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 429/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hipp & Co. (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, A. Wagner and B. Brandstätter, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Nestlé Nutrition GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2014 (Cases R 1171/2012-4 and R 1326/2012-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Nestlé Nutrition GmbH and Hipp & Co.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Hipp & Co. and Nestlé Nutrition GmbH shall each bear their own costs and half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hipp & Co. and Nestlé Nutrition GmbH shall each bear their own costs and half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/25

---

Order of the General Court of 27 October 2015 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-721/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Online gambling services - Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online - Commission Recommendation - Act not subject to review - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 429/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU of 14 July 2014 on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online (OJ 2014 L 214, p. 38).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Hellenic Republic and the Portuguese Republic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Hellenic Republic and the Portuguese Republic.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Belgium shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Belgium shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs of the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs of the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/26

---

Order of the General Court of 16 October 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Dermogen Farma (ETERN JUVENTUS)

(Case T-60/15) (1)

((Community Trade Mark - Opposition proceedings - Restriction of the services applied for - no need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 429/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA, (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dermogen Farma, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 (case R 2414/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern, SA and Dermogen Farma, SA.

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 parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/26

---

Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Macchia v Commission

(Case T-80/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Interest of the service - Duty of care - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2015/C 429/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Macchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Macchia v Commission, F-63/11 RENV, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:272, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Macchia shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present instance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Macchia shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/27

---

Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Ezz and Others v Council

(Case T-288/15)

(2015/C 429/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Giza, Egypt), Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: J. Lewis, QC, B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, J. Binns, Solicitor, J. Bellis and S. Rowe, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/486 of 20 March 2015 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2015 L 77, p. 16), insofar as it applies to the applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/486 of 20 March 2015 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2015 L 77, p. 16), insofar as it applies to the applicants; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to identify a proper legal base for the contested decision. The applicants contend that Article 29 TEU is not a proper legal base for the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to identify a proper legal base for the contested decision. The applicants contend that Article 29 TEU is not a proper legal base for the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicants’ rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3 of the TEU, and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicants’ rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3 of the TEU, and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to satisfy the criterion for listing the applicants prescribed in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (JO 2011 L 76, p. 63) (as amended) and Article 2 of Council Regulation Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) (as amended). The applicants contend that they have not been ‘identified as responsible’ for the misappropriation of Egyptian State funds or human rights violations in Egypt, or a person associated with anyone properly so identified. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to satisfy the criterion for listing the applicants prescribed in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (JO 2011 L 76, p. 63) (as amended) and Article 2 of Council Regulation Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) (as amended). The applicants contend that they have not been ‘identified as responsible’ for the misappropriation of Egyptian State funds or human rights violations in Egypt, or a person associated with anyone properly so identified.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicants’ rights of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular the applicants contend that the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify redesignation were well founded in light of the representations made by the applicants prior to redesignation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicants’ rights of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular the applicants contend that the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify redesignation were well founded in light of the representations made by the applicants prior to redesignation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants' fundamental rights, including their rights to protection of their property and reputation. The applicants contend that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicants’ assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants' fundamental rights, including their rights to protection of their property and reputation. The applicants contend that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicants’ assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/28

---

Action brought on 22 October 2015 — CEVA v Commission

(Case T-601/15)

(2015/C 429/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: E. De Boissieu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | order the Commission to pay CEVA the amount of EUR 59  103,21, in accordance with the Grant Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay CEVA the amount of EUR 59  103,21, in accordance with the Grant Agreement;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With this application, the applicant seeks an order for the payment by the Commission of the first instalment of the financial contribution granted in implement of the SEABIOPLAS contract and the Grant Agreement, concerning a research and technological development project in the field of ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’, following the offsetting of that amount by the Commission of its own motion by way of recovery of the sums paid to the applicant under the PROTOP contract, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit by OLAF.

In support of the action, the applicant relies, essentially, on a single plea in law, alleging errors committed by the Commission which prevented the recovery by offsetting claims against sums paid to the applicant by the Commission. The applicant claims, in essence, that the conditions for recovery by offsetting were not met. First, the claim of the Commission against the applicant was neither certain, nor payable. Second, the Commission had not complied with Article 87(2) (recovery by offsetting) and Article 88 (recovery procedure failing voluntary payment) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has no contractual claim against it. In the alternative, in the event that the Court holds that the offsetting is valid, the applicant submits that the refund of the total amount of the grant it received is contrary to the principle of proportionality and amounts to the unjust enrichment of the Commission.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/29

---

Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Elan v Commission

(Case T-27/13) (1)

(2015/C 429/37)

Language of the case: Slovene

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/29

---

Order of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture)

(Case T-28/13) (1)

(2015/C 429/38)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/29

---

Order of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-260/13) (1)

(2015/C 429/39)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/30

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FL, FM and FO v CEPOL

(Case F-41/15 DISS I)

(2015/C 429/40)

Language of the case: French

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

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/30

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — HA v Commission

(Case F-55/15) (1)

(2015/C 429/41)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 45.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/30

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GK and GH v Commission

(Case F-80/15) (1)

(2015/C 429/42)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24/8/2015, p. 58.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/30

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GM and GN v Commission

(Case F-81/15) (1)

(2015/C 429/43)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10/8/2015, p. 42.

---

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/31

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FM and FO v CEPOL

(Case F-105/15) (1)

(2015/C 429/44)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 53.

---