# Official Journal C 294/7 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 294 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 587 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 294

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 587 September 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 294/01 | 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 294/01

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 294/02 | Case C-497/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas v Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Principle of non-discrimination — Abuse of dominant position — Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Inadmissibility) | 2 |
| 2015/C 294/03 | Case C-422/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree (References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 34(2)(a) — Concept of area eligible for aid — Concept of agricultural area — Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care — Use for agricultural activities — Lawfulness) | 3 |
| 2015/C 294/04 | Case C-461/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — EU action in the field of water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Article 4(1) — Environmental objectives relating to surface waters — Deterioration of the status of a body of surface water — Project for the development of a navigable waterway — Obligation of the Member States not to authorise a project that may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water — Decisive criteria for determining whether there is a deterioration of the status of a body of water) | 3 |
| 2015/C 294/05 | Case C-607/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others v Francesco Cimmino and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 — Articles 7, 11 and 21 — Tariff quotas — Bananas originating in ACP countries — Newcomers — Import licences — Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences — Abusive practice — Regulation (EC) No 2988/95 — Article 4(3)) | 4 |
| 2015/C 294/06 | Case C-684/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Johannes Demmer v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter (References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 44(2) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 34(2)(a) — Concept of eligible hectare — Areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways — Agricultural use — Lawfulness — Recovery of agricultural aid unduly allocated) | 5 |
| 2015/C 294/07 | Case C-63/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Illegal aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation of recovery — Absolutely impossible — Compensation for a service additional to the basic service) | 6 |
| 2015/C 294/08 | Case C-87/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Organisation of working time of doctors in training) | 7 |
| 2015/C 294/09 | Case C-144/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș — Romania) — Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 273 and 287 — Obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes — Whether veterinary services are taxable — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations) | 7 |
| 2015/C 294/10 | Case C-153/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K, A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 7(2) — Family reunification — Integration measures — National legislation requiring the family members of a third country national residing lawfully in that Member State to pass a civic integration exam in order to enter the territory of that Member State — Costs of such an exam — Compatibility) | 8 |
| 2015/C 294/11 | Case C-177/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 3 and 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Non-permanent staff — Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment — Objective grounds) | 9 |
| 2015/C 294/12 | Case C-183/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168, 179 and 213 — Reclassification by the national tax authority of a transaction as an economic activity subject to VAT — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — National legislation making the exercise of the right of deduction subject to the identification of the trader concerned for VAT purposes and to the filing of a tax return in respect of that tax) | 10 |
| 2015/C 294/13 | Case C-209/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — NLB Leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Supply of goods or services — Lease agreement — Return of immovable property that is the subject-matter of a lease agreement to the lessor — Concept of cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment — Lessor’s right to a reduction of the taxable amount — Double taxation — Separate supplies — Principle of fiscal neutrality) | 10 |
| 2015/C 294/14 | Case C-229/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany)) — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Collective redundancies — Concept of worker — Member of the board of directors of a limited liability company — Person working under a scheme for training and reintegration into the labour market and benefitting from a public training grant but not receiving remuneration from the employer) | 11 |
| 2015/C 294/15 | Case C-231/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels — Price-fixing — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates — Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA — Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned) | 12 |
| 2015/C 294/16 | Case C-249/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (Appeal — Community trade mark — Community figurative mark QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA — Application for registration — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national figurative marks VINHO PÊRAMANCA TINTO, VINHO PÊRAMANCA BRANCO and PÊRAMANCA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion) | 13 |
| 2015/C 294/17 | Case C-331/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value-added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Articles 2(1) and 4(1) — Tax liability — Immovable property transactions — Sale of lands assigned to the private assets of a natural person exercising the profession of sole trader — Taxable person acting as such) | 13 |
| 2015/C 294/18 | Case C-334/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium)) — The Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care — Closely related activities — Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care — Self-employed activity — Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis — Establishment of a similar nature) | 14 |
| 2015/C 294/19 | Case C-348/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Maria Bucura v SC Bancpost SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 87/102/EEC — Article 1(2)(a) — Consumer credit — Concept of consumer — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 2(b), 3 to 5 and 6(1) — Unfair terms — Examination by the national court of its own motion — Terms drafted in plain, intelligible language — Information which the creditor must provide) | 15 |
| 2015/C 294/20 | Case C-360/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (Appeal — Approximation of laws — Directive 2009/48/EC — Toy safety — Limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys — Commission decision not to approve in full the national provisions notified by the German authorities maintaining the limit values for those substances — Proof of a higher level of protection for human health offered by the national provisions) | 16 |
| 2015/C 294/21 | Case C-575/14 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the eContent programme — Termination of the contract by the European Commission — Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — Distortion of evidence in the file — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder — Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs — Manifest inadmissibility) | 16 |
| 2015/C 294/22 | Case C-223/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2015 — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd | 17 |
| 2015/C 294/23 | Case C-229/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak | 17 |
| 2015/C 294/24 | Case C-231/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o. | 18 |
| 2015/C 294/25 | Case C-252/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Naazneen Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2015 in Case T-250/13: Naazneen Investments Limited v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) | 19 |
| 2015/C 294/26 | Case C-255/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland | 21 |
| 2015/C 294/27 | Case C-262/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2015 — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH | 22 |
| 2015/C 294/28 | Case C-263/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 June 2015 — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága | 23 |
| 2015/C 294/29 | Case C-264/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission | 23 |
| 2015/C 294/30 | Case C-265/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission | 24 |
| 2015/C 294/31 | Case C-266/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2015 by Central Bank of Iran against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-563/12: Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union | 25 |
| 2015/C 294/32 | Case C-269/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2015 — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad; other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering | 26 |
| 2015/C 294/33 | Case C-276/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt | 27 |
| 2015/C 294/34 | Case C-277/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH | 28 |
| 2015/C 294/35 | Case C-279/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 June 2015 by Alexandre Borde and Carbonium against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-314/14: Borde and Carbonium v Commission | 28 |
| 2015/C 294/36 | Case C-281/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch | 29 |
| 2015/C 294/37 | Case C-282/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany | 30 |
| 2015/C 294/38 | Case C-283/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2015 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 31 |
| 2015/C 294/39 | Case C-288/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS) v Hauptzollamt München | 32 |
| 2015/C 294/40 | Case C-289/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Jozef Grundza | 32 |
| 2015/C 294/41 | Case C-292/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2015 — Hörmann Reisen GmbH v Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg | 33 |
| 2015/C 294/42 | Case C-297/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring B.V. v Orifarm A/S | 34 |
| 2015/C 294/43 | Case C-300/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes | 34 |
| 2015/C 294/44 | Case C-301/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier ministre | 35 |
| 2015/C 294/45 | Case C-302/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca | 35 |
| 2015/C 294/46 | Case C-305/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 24 June 2015 — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen | 36 |
| 2015/C 294/47 | Case C-310/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA | 37 |
| 2015/C 294/48 | Case C-311/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2015 — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi | 38 |
| 2015/C 294/49 | Case C-313/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS | 38 |
| 2015/C 294/50 | Case C-314/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — European Commission v French Republic | 39 |
| 2015/C 294/51 | Case C-321/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Rodange et Schifflange SA v State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg | 39 |
| 2015/C 294/52 | Case C-327/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 July 2015 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet | 40 |
| 2015/C 294/53 | Case C-335/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2015 — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero | 41 |
| 2015/C 294/54 | Case C-337/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2015 by the European Ombudsman against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman | 42 |
| 2015/C 294/55 | Case C-338/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Claire Staelen against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman | 43 |
| 2015/C 294/56 | Case C-351/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-470/11 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission | 44 |
| 2015/C 294/57 | Case C-358/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by Bank of Industry and Mine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-10/13 Bank of Industry and Mine v Council | 45 |
| 2015/C 294/58 | Case C-359/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by The National Iranian Gas Company against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-9/13 The National Iranian Gas Company v Council | 47 |
| 2015/C 294/59 | Case C-373/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission | 48 |
| | General Court |
| 2015/C 294/60 | Case T-172/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility) | 50 |
| 2015/C 294/61 | Case T-173/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — WeserWind v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 51 |
| 2015/C 294/62 | Case T-174/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 51 |
| 2015/C 294/63 | Case T-175/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Walter Hundhausen v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 52 |
| 2015/C 294/64 | Case T-176/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility) | 53 |
| 2015/C 294/65 | Case T-177/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Harz Guss Zorge v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility) | 54 |
| 2015/C 294/66 | Case T-178/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 55 |
| 2015/C 294/67 | Case T-179/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 56 |
| 2015/C 294/68 | Case T-183/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedag v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility) | 57 |
| 2015/C 294/69 | Case T-230/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 57 |
| 2015/C 294/70 | Case T-235/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Hamburg and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 58 |
| 2015/C 294/71 | Case T-236/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Kronotex and Kronoply v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 59 |
| 2015/C 294/72 | Case T-237/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Steinbeis Papier v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 60 |
| 2015/C 294/73 | Case T-265/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schumacher Packaging v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 60 |
| 2015/C 294/74 | Case T-270/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 61 |
| 2015/C 294/75 | Case T-272/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 62 |
| 2015/C 294/76 | Case T-275/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 63 |
| 2015/C 294/77 | Case T-276/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Flachglas Torgau and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 63 |
| 2015/C 294/78 | Case T-280/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 64 |
| 2015/C 294/79 | Case T-281/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Fels-Werke v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 65 |
| 2015/C 294/80 | Case T-282/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Bayer MaterialScience v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 66 |
| 2015/C 294/81 | Case T-283/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Advansa and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 66 |
| 2015/C 294/82 | Case T-318/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 67 |
| 2015/C 294/83 | Case T-161/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB | 68 |
| 2015/C 294/84 | Case T-255/15: Action brought on 19 May 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council | 69 |
| 2015/C 294/85 | Case T-262/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Kiselev v Council | 70 |
| 2015/C 294/86 | Case T-275/15: Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Hmicho/Conseil | 71 |
| 2015/C 294/87 | Case T-278/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by European External Action Service (EEAS) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14 | 72 |
| 2015/C 294/88 | Case T-292/15: Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Vakakis v Commission | 73 |
| 2015/C 294/89 | Case T-310/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission | 74 |
| 2015/C 294/90 | Case T-316/15: Action brought on 11 June 2015 — Republic of Poland v Commission | 75 |
| 2015/C 294/91 | Case T-332/15: Action brought on 16 June 2015 — Ocean Capital Administration a.O. v Conseil | 76 |
| 2015/C 294/92 | Case T-336/15: Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials) | 77 |
| 2015/C 294/93 | Case T-337/15: Action brought on 29 June 2015 — Bach Flower Remedies v OHIM — Durapharma (RESCUE) | 78 |
| 2015/C 294/94 | Case T-349/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — CG v OHIM — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER) | 79 |
| 2015/C 294/95 | Case T-355/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Alpex Pharma v OHIM — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX) | 79 |
| 2015/C 294/96 | Case T-358/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Puig France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci) | 80 |
| 2015/C 294/97 | Case T-359/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci) | 81 |
| 2015/C 294/98 | Case T-361/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream) | 81 |
| 2015/C 294/99 | Case T-362/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Lacamanda Group v OHIM — Woolley (HENLEY) | 82 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2015/C 294/00 | Case F-92/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 83 |
| 2015/C 294/01 | Case F-94/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — ZZ v EEAS | 83 |
| 2015/C 294/02 | Case F-95/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 84 |
| 2015/C 294/03 | Case F-96/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 84 |
| 2015/C 294/04 | Case F-97/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 85 |
| 2015/C 294/05 | Case F-98/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament | 86 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 294/02

Case C-497/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas v Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Principle of non-discrimination — Abuse of dominant position — Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Inadmissibility)

2

2015/C 294/03

Case C-422/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree (References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 34(2)(a) — Concept of area eligible for aid — Concept of agricultural area — Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care — Use for agricultural activities — Lawfulness)

3

2015/C 294/04

Case C-461/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — EU action in the field of water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Article 4(1) — Environmental objectives relating to surface waters — Deterioration of the status of a body of surface water — Project for the development of a navigable waterway — Obligation of the Member States not to authorise a project that may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water — Decisive criteria for determining whether there is a deterioration of the status of a body of water)

3

2015/C 294/05

Case C-607/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others v Francesco Cimmino and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 — Articles 7, 11 and 21 — Tariff quotas — Bananas originating in ACP countries — Newcomers — Import licences — Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences — Abusive practice — Regulation (EC) No 2988/95 — Article 4(3))

4

2015/C 294/06

Case C-684/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Johannes Demmer v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter (References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 44(2) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 34(2)(a) — Concept of eligible hectare — Areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways — Agricultural use — Lawfulness — Recovery of agricultural aid unduly allocated)

5

2015/C 294/07

Case C-63/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Illegal aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation of recovery — Absolutely impossible — Compensation for a service additional to the basic service)

6

2015/C 294/08

Case C-87/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Organisation of working time of doctors in training)

7

2015/C 294/09

Case C-144/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș — Romania) — Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 273 and 287 — Obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes — Whether veterinary services are taxable — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)

7

2015/C 294/10

Case C-153/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K, A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 7(2) — Family reunification — Integration measures — National legislation requiring the family members of a third country national residing lawfully in that Member State to pass a civic integration exam in order to enter the territory of that Member State — Costs of such an exam — Compatibility)

8

2015/C 294/11

Case C-177/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 3 and 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Non-permanent staff — Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment — Objective grounds)

9

2015/C 294/12

Case C-183/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168, 179 and 213 — Reclassification by the national tax authority of a transaction as an economic activity subject to VAT — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — National legislation making the exercise of the right of deduction subject to the identification of the trader concerned for VAT purposes and to the filing of a tax return in respect of that tax)

10

2015/C 294/13

Case C-209/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — NLB Leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Supply of goods or services — Lease agreement — Return of immovable property that is the subject-matter of a lease agreement to the lessor — Concept of cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment — Lessor’s right to a reduction of the taxable amount — Double taxation — Separate supplies — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

10

2015/C 294/14

Case C-229/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany)) — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Collective redundancies — Concept of worker — Member of the board of directors of a limited liability company — Person working under a scheme for training and reintegration into the labour market and benefitting from a public training grant but not receiving remuneration from the employer)

11

2015/C 294/15

Case C-231/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels — Price-fixing — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates — Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA — Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned)

12

2015/C 294/16

Case C-249/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (Appeal — Community trade mark — Community figurative mark QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA — Application for registration — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national figurative marks VINHO PÊRAMANCA TINTO, VINHO PÊRAMANCA BRANCO and PÊRAMANCA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

da

13

2015/C 294/17

Case C-331/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value-added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Articles 2(1) and 4(1) — Tax liability — Immovable property transactions — Sale of lands assigned to the private assets of a natural person exercising the profession of sole trader — Taxable person acting as such)

13

2015/C 294/18

Case C-334/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium)) — The Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care — Closely related activities — Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care — Self-employed activity — Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis — Establishment of a similar nature)

14

2015/C 294/19

Case C-348/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Maria Bucura v SC Bancpost SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 87/102/EEC — Article 1(2)(a) — Consumer credit — Concept of consumer — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 2(b), 3 to 5 and 6(1) — Unfair terms — Examination by the national court of its own motion — Terms drafted in plain, intelligible language — Information which the creditor must provide)

15

2015/C 294/20

Case C-360/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (Appeal — Approximation of laws — Directive 2009/48/EC — Toy safety — Limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys — Commission decision not to approve in full the national provisions notified by the German authorities maintaining the limit values for those substances — Proof of a higher level of protection for human health offered by the national provisions)

16

2015/C 294/21

Case C-575/14 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the eContent programme — Termination of the contract by the European Commission — Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — Distortion of evidence in the file — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder — Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs — Manifest inadmissibility)

16

2015/C 294/22

Case C-223/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2015 — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

17

2015/C 294/23

Case C-229/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak

17

2015/C 294/24

Case C-231/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

18

2015/C 294/25

Case C-252/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Naazneen Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2015 in Case T-250/13: Naazneen Investments Limited v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

19

2015/C 294/26

Case C-255/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

21

2015/C 294/27

Case C-262/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2015 — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

22

2015/C 294/28

Case C-263/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 June 2015 — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

23

2015/C 294/29

Case C-264/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

23

2015/C 294/30

Case C-265/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission

24

2015/C 294/31

Case C-266/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2015 by Central Bank of Iran against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-563/12: Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union

25

2015/C 294/32

Case C-269/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2015 — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad; other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

26

2015/C 294/33

Case C-276/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt

27

2015/C 294/34

Case C-277/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH

28

2015/C 294/35

Case C-279/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 June 2015 by Alexandre Borde and Carbonium against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-314/14: Borde and Carbonium v Commission

28

2015/C 294/36

Case C-281/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

29

2015/C 294/37

Case C-282/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany

30

2015/C 294/38

Case C-283/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2015 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

31

2015/C 294/39

Case C-288/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS) v Hauptzollamt München

32

2015/C 294/40

Case C-289/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Jozef Grundza

32

2015/C 294/41

Case C-292/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2015 — Hörmann Reisen GmbH v Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

33

2015/C 294/42

Case C-297/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring B.V. v Orifarm A/S

34

2015/C 294/43

Case C-300/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes

34

2015/C 294/44

Case C-301/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier ministre

35

2015/C 294/45

Case C-302/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

35

2015/C 294/46

Case C-305/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 24 June 2015 — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

36

2015/C 294/47

Case C-310/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA

37

2015/C 294/48

Case C-311/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2015 — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi

38

2015/C 294/49

Case C-313/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS

38

2015/C 294/50

Case C-314/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — European Commission v French Republic

39

2015/C 294/51

Case C-321/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Rodange et Schifflange SA v State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

39

2015/C 294/52

Case C-327/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 July 2015 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet

40

2015/C 294/53

Case C-335/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2015 — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

41

2015/C 294/54

Case C-337/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2015 by the European Ombudsman against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman

42

2015/C 294/55

Case C-338/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Claire Staelen against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman

43

2015/C 294/56

Case C-351/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-470/11 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

Total and Elf Aquitaine

Commission

44

2015/C 294/57

Case C-358/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by Bank of Industry and Mine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-10/13 Bank of Industry and Mine v Council

Bank of Industry and Mine

Council

45

2015/C 294/58

Case C-359/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by The National Iranian Gas Company against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-9/13 The National Iranian Gas Company v Council

The National Iranian Gas Company

Council

47

2015/C 294/59

Case C-373/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission

France

Commission

48

General Court

2015/C 294/60

Case T-172/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

50

2015/C 294/61

Case T-173/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — WeserWind v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

51

2015/C 294/62

Case T-174/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

51

2015/C 294/63

Case T-175/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Walter Hundhausen v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

52

2015/C 294/64

Case T-176/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

53

2015/C 294/65

Case T-177/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Harz Guss Zorge v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

54

2015/C 294/66

Case T-178/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

55

2015/C 294/67

Case T-179/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

56

2015/C 294/68

Case T-183/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedag v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

57

2015/C 294/69

Case T-230/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

57

2015/C 294/70

Case T-235/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Hamburg and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

58

2015/C 294/71

Case T-236/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Kronotex and Kronoply v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

59

2015/C 294/72

Case T-237/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Steinbeis Papier v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

60

2015/C 294/73

Case T-265/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schumacher Packaging v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

60

2015/C 294/74

Case T-270/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

61

2015/C 294/75

Case T-272/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

62

2015/C 294/76

Case T-275/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

63

2015/C 294/77

Case T-276/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Flachglas Torgau and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

63

2015/C 294/78

Case T-280/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

64

2015/C 294/79

Case T-281/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Fels-Werke v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

65

2015/C 294/80

Case T-282/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Bayer MaterialScience v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

66

2015/C 294/81

Case T-283/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Advansa and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

66

2015/C 294/82

Case T-318/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

67

2015/C 294/83

Case T-161/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB

68

2015/C 294/84

Case T-255/15: Action brought on 19 May 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council

69

2015/C 294/85

Case T-262/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Kiselev v Council

70

2015/C 294/86

Case T-275/15: Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Hmicho/Conseil

71

2015/C 294/87

Case T-278/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by European External Action Service (EEAS) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14

72

2015/C 294/88

Case T-292/15: Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Vakakis v Commission

73

2015/C 294/89

Case T-310/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

74

2015/C 294/90

Case T-316/15: Action brought on 11 June 2015 — Republic of Poland v Commission

75

2015/C 294/91

Case T-332/15: Action brought on 16 June 2015 — Ocean Capital Administration a.O. v Conseil

76

2015/C 294/92

Case T-336/15: Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials)

77

2015/C 294/93

Case T-337/15: Action brought on 29 June 2015 — Bach Flower Remedies v OHIM — Durapharma (RESCUE)

78

2015/C 294/94

Case T-349/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — CG v OHIM — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER)

79

2015/C 294/95

Case T-355/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Alpex Pharma v OHIM — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX)

79

2015/C 294/96

Case T-358/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Puig France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

80

2015/C 294/97

Case T-359/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

81

2015/C 294/98

Case T-361/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream)

81

2015/C 294/99

Case T-362/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Lacamanda Group v OHIM — Woolley (HENLEY)

82

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2015/C 294/00

Case F-92/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission

83

2015/C 294/01

Case F-94/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

83

2015/C 294/02

Case F-95/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

84

2015/C 294/03

Case F-96/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

84

2015/C 294/04

Case F-97/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

85

2015/C 294/05

Case F-98/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

86

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/1

---

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

(2015/C 294/01)

Last publication

OJ C 279, 24.8.2015

Past publications

OJ C 270, 17.8.2015

OJ C 262, 10.8.2015

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015

OJ C 245, 27.7.2015

OJ C 236, 20.7.2015

OJ C 228, 13.7.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas v Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

(Case C-497/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Principle of non-discrimination - Abuse of dominant position - Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 294/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas

Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

Operative part of the judgment

The questions referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy), by decision of 9 October 2012, and maintained by that court, are inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree

(Case C-422/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 34(2)(a) - Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ - Concept of ‘agricultural area’ - Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care - Use for agricultural activities - Lawfulness))

(2015/C 294/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Defendant: Uta Wree

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that an area which forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care constitutes an agricultural area within the meaning of that provision when it is actually used for permanent pasture.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-461/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - EU action in the field of water policy - Directive 2000/60/EC - Article 4(1) - Environmental objectives relating to surface waters - Deterioration of the status of a body of surface water - Project for the development of a navigable waterway - Obligation of the Member States not to authorise a project that may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water - Decisive criteria for determining whether there is a deterioration of the status of a body of water))

(2015/C 294/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Joined party: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(1)(a)(i) to (iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required — unless a derogation is granted — to refuse authorisation for an individual project where it may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water or where it jeopardises the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by the directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(1)(a)(i) to (iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required — unless a derogation is granted — to refuse authorisation for an individual project where it may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water or where it jeopardises the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by the directive.

| 2. | The concept of ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water in Article 4(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that there is deterioration as soon as the status of at least one of the quality elements, within the meaning of Annex V to the directive, falls by one class, even if that fall does not result in a fall in classification of the body of surface water as a whole. However, if the quality element concerned, within the meaning of that annex, is already in the lowest class, any deterioration of that element constitutes a ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water, within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a)(i). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The concept of ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water in Article 4(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that there is deterioration as soon as the status of at least one of the quality elements, within the meaning of Annex V to the directive, falls by one class, even if that fall does not result in a fall in classification of the body of surface water as a whole. However, if the quality element concerned, within the meaning of that annex, is already in the lowest class, any deterioration of that element constitutes a ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water, within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a)(i).

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others v Francesco Cimmino and Others

(Case C-607/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 - Articles 7, 11 and 21 - Tariff quotas - Bananas originating in ACP countries - Newcomers - Import licences - Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences - Abusive practice - Regulation (EC) No 2988/95 - Article 4(3)))

(2015/C 294/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane, European Commission

Defendants: Francesco Cimmino, Costantino Elmi, Diletto Nicchi, Vincenzo Nicchi, Ivo Lazzeri, Euclide Lorenzon, Patrizia Mansutti, Maurizio Misturelli, Maurizio Momesso, Mirjam Princic, Marco Raffaelli, Gianni Vecchi, Marco Malavasi, Massimo Malavasi, Umberto Malavasi, Carlo Mosca, Luca Nicoli, Raffaella Orsero, Raffaello Orsero, Erminia Palombini, Matteo Surian

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1632/2000 of 25 July 2000, in conjunction with Article 11 of that regulation, is to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that an economic agent must have been engaged in commercial activity as an importer ‘independently and on [his] own account’ must be satisfied not only for the purpose of the registration of such an agent as a ‘newcomer’ within the meaning of that provision but also that of ensuring that the agent may maintain that status in order to import bananas under the tariff quotas laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1632/2000 of 25 July 2000, in conjunction with Article 11 of that regulation, is to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that an economic agent must have been engaged in commercial activity as an importer ‘independently and on [his] own account’ must be satisfied not only for the purpose of the registration of such an agent as a ‘newcomer’ within the meaning of that provision but also that of ensuring that the agent may maintain that status in order to import bananas under the tariff quotas laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations;

| 2. | Article 21(2) of Regulation No 2362/98, as amended, must be interpreted as precluding transactions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a newcomer purchases, through another operator registered as a newcomer, goods from a traditional operator before the goods are imported into the EU, then sells them to that traditional operator, through the same intermediary, after importing the goods into the EU, if those transactions constitute an abusive practice, which it is for the national court to establish; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 21(2) of Regulation No 2362/98, as amended, must be interpreted as precluding transactions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a newcomer purchases, through another operator registered as a newcomer, goods from a traditional operator before the goods are imported into the EU, then sells them to that traditional operator, through the same intermediary, after importing the goods into the EU, if those transactions constitute an abusive practice, which it is for the national court to establish;

| 3. | Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests is to be interpreted as meaning that the finding of an abusive practice in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings means that an operator who has placed himself artificially in a situation enabling him to obtain unlawfully the benefit of the preferential rate of duty for the importation of bananas is obliged to pay the duties on the goods concerned, without prejudice, where appropriate, to any administrative, civil or criminal-law penalties provided for by national law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests is to be interpreted as meaning that the finding of an abusive practice in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings means that an operator who has placed himself artificially in a situation enabling him to obtain unlawfully the benefit of the preferential rate of duty for the importation of bananas is obliged to pay the duties on the goods concerned, without prejudice, where appropriate, to any administrative, civil or criminal-law penalties provided for by national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Johannes Demmer v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

(Case C-684/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 44(2) - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 34(2)(a) - Concept of ‘eligible hectare’ - Areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways - Agricultural use - Lawfulness - Recovery of agricultural aid unduly allocated))

(2015/C 294/06)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Johannes Demmer

Defendant: Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 44(2) of Council Regulation No 1782/2003 (EC) of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Articles 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that an agricultural area made up of airfield safety areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways which are subject to specific rules and restrictions is an area eligible for the aid concerned, provided that: (i) the farmer using that area enjoys a sufficient degree of autonomy with regard to its use for the purposes of his or her agricultural activity; and (ii) the farmer is able to carry out the agricultural activity on that area despite restrictions arising from the pursuance of a non-agricultural activity on those same areas. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 44(2) of Council Regulation No 1782/2003 (EC) of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Articles 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that an agricultural area made up of airfield safety areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways which are subject to specific rules and restrictions is an area eligible for the aid concerned, provided that: (i) the farmer using that area enjoys a sufficient degree of autonomy with regard to its use for the purposes of his or her agricultural activity; and (ii) the farmer is able to carry out the agricultural activity on that area despite restrictions arising from the pursuance of a non-agricultural activity on those same areas.

| 2. | Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer who was informed prior to 1 January 2010 that payment entitlements were allocated to him or her unduly may not rely on that article for the purpose of having those entitlements regularised.
  Article 73(4) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2184/2005 of 23 December 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer ought reasonably to have detected as ineligible for aid areas in respect of whose use he or she has no discretion for the purpose of carrying out his or her agricultural activity and/or on which he or she is unable to carry out agricultural activity due to restrictions arising from the pursuance of a non-agricultural activity on those same areas. The relevant moment for assessing whether the error committed could reasonably be detected by that farmer is the time of the payment. The assessment under Article 73(4) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be conducted separately in respect of each of the years concerned.
  Article 73(5) of Regulation No 796/2004, as amended by Regulation No 2184/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, a farmer must be regarded as having been in good faith if he or she sincerely believed that the areas concerned were eligible for aid. The assessment of that farmer’s good faith for the purposes of Article 73(5) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be conducted separately in respect of each of the years concerned and that good faith must continue until the end of the fourth year following the date of the payment of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer who was informed prior to 1 January 2010 that payment entitlements were allocated to him or her unduly may not rely on that article for the purpose of having those entitlements regularised.

Article 73(4) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2184/2005 of 23 December 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer ought reasonably to have detected as ineligible for aid areas in respect of whose use he or she has no discretion for the purpose of carrying out his or her agricultural activity and/or on which he or she is unable to carry out agricultural activity due to restrictions arising from the pursuance of a non-agricultural activity on those same areas. The relevant moment for assessing whether the error committed could reasonably be detected by that farmer is the time of the payment. The assessment under Article 73(4) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be conducted separately in respect of each of the years concerned.

Article 73(5) of Regulation No 796/2004, as amended by Regulation No 2184/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, a farmer must be regarded as having been in good faith if he or she sincerely believed that the areas concerned were eligible for aid. The assessment of that farmer’s good faith for the purposes of Article 73(5) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be conducted separately in respect of each of the years concerned and that good faith must continue until the end of the fourth year following the date of the payment of the aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-63/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Illegal aid incompatible with the internal market - Obligation of recovery - Absolutely impossible - Compensation for a service additional to the basic service))

(2015/C 294/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and N. Rouam and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to recover from Société Nationale Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) within the periods prescribed, by failing to cancel all the payments of aid referred to in Article 2(1) of that decision within the periods prescribed, and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision within the period prescribed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 298, fourth paragraph, TFEU and Articles 3 to 5 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to recover from Société Nationale Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) within the periods prescribed, by failing to cancel all the payments of aid referred to in Article 2(1) of that decision within the periods prescribed, and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision within the period prescribed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 298, fourth paragraph, TFEU and Articles 3 to 5 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-87/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Organisation of working time of doctors in training))

(2015/C 294/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and E. Mc Phillips and by A. Joyce and B. Counihan, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Fennelly, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 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.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș — Romania) — Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

(Case C-144/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 273 and 287 - Obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes - Whether veterinary services are taxable - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations))

(2015/C 294/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Maramureș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first paragraph of Article 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, does not require Member States to register of their own motion a taxable person for the purposes of collecting value added tax solely on the basis of tax returns, other than those relating to value added tax, where those returns would have made it possible to establish that the taxable person had exceeded the exemption threshold for value added tax. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first paragraph of Article 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, does not require Member States to register of their own motion a taxable person for the purposes of collecting value added tax solely on the basis of tax returns, other than those relating to value added tax, where those returns would have made it possible to establish that the taxable person had exceeded the exemption threshold for value added tax.

| 2. | The principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a tax authority from deciding that veterinary services are subject to value added tax in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, provided that that decision is based on clear rules and the practice of that authority was not such as to create in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic operator a reasonable expectation that value added tax would not be applied to those services, that being a matter for the referring court to establish. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a tax authority from deciding that veterinary services are subject to value added tax in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, provided that that decision is based on clear rules and the practice of that authority was not such as to create in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic operator a reasonable expectation that value added tax would not be applied to those services, that being a matter for the referring court to establish.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K, A

(Case C-153/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 7(2) - Family reunification - Integration measures - National legislation requiring the family members of a third country national residing lawfully in that Member State to pass a civic integration exam in order to enter the territory of that Member State - Costs of such an exam - Compatibility))

(2015/C 294/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Defendant: K, A

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may require third country nationals to pass a civic integration examination, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in an assessment of basic knowledge both of the language of the Member State concerned and of its society and which entails the payment of various costs, before authorising that national’s entry into and residence in the territory of the Member State for the purposes of family reunification, provided that the conditions of application of such a requirement do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right to family reunification. In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, in so far as they do not allow regard to be had to special circumstances objectively forming an obstacle to the applicants passing the examination and in so far as they set the fees relating to such an examination at too high a level, those conditions make the exercise of the right to family reunification impossible or excessively difficult.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado

(Case C-177/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 3 and 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - ‘Non-permanent staff’ - Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment - Objective grounds))

(2015/C 294/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María José Regojo Dans

Defendant: Consejo de Estado

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of a ‘fixed-term worker’, within the meaning of clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as applying to a worker such as the applicant in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of a ‘fixed-term worker’, within the meaning of clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as applying to a worker such as the applicant in the main proceedings.

| 2. | Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, without justification on objective grounds, non-permanent staff from the right to receive a three-yearly length-of-service increment granted, inter alia, to career civil servants when, as regards the receipt of that increment, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, without justification on objective grounds, non-permanent staff from the right to receive a three-yearly length-of-service increment granted, inter alia, to career civil servants when, as regards the receipt of that increment, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-183/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 179 and 213 - Reclassification by the national tax authority of a transaction as an economic activity subject to VAT - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - National legislation making the exercise of the right of deduction subject to the identification of the trader concerned for VAT purposes and to the filing of a tax return in respect of that tax))

(2015/C 294/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean

Respondent: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, a national tax authority from deciding, following a tax audit, to subject transactions to value added tax and to impose the payment of surcharges, provided that that decision is based on clear and precise rules and that that authority’s practice has not been such as to give rise, in the mind of a prudent and well-informed trader, to a reasonable expectation that that tax would not be levied on such transactions, this being a matter for the referring court to determine. The surcharges applied in such circumstances must comply with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, a national tax authority from deciding, following a tax audit, to subject transactions to value added tax and to impose the payment of surcharges, provided that that decision is based on clear and precise rules and that that authority’s practice has not been such as to give rise, in the mind of a prudent and well-informed trader, to a reasonable expectation that that tax would not be levied on such transactions, this being a matter for the referring court to determine. The surcharges applied in such circumstances must comply with the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax precludes, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, national rules under which the right to deduct input value added tax, due or paid on goods and services used in the context of taxed transactions, is refused to the taxable person, who must nevertheless pay the tax that he ought to have recovered, for the sole reason that he was not identified for value-added-tax purposes when he carried out those transactions, so long as he has not been duly identified for value-added-tax purposes and the tax return for the tax due has not been filed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax precludes, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, national rules under which the right to deduct input value added tax, due or paid on goods and services used in the context of taxed transactions, is refused to the taxable person, who must nevertheless pay the tax that he ought to have recovered, for the sole reason that he was not identified for value-added-tax purposes when he carried out those transactions, so long as he has not been duly identified for value-added-tax purposes and the tax return for the tax due has not been filed.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — NLB Leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-209/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Supply of goods or services - Lease agreement - Return of immovable property that is the subject-matter of a lease agreement to the lessor - Concept of ‘cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment’ - Lessor’s right to a reduction of the taxable amount - Double taxation - Separate supplies - Principle of fiscal neutrality))

(2015/C 294/13)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NLB Leasing d.o.o.

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 2(1), 14 and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a lease agreement relating to immovable property provides either that ownership of that property is to be transferred to the lessee on the expiry of that agreement or that all the essential powers attaching to ownership of that property are to be enjoyed by the lessee and, in particular, substantially all the rewards and risks incidental to legal ownership of that property are transferred to the lessee and the present value of the amount of the lease payments is practically identical to the market value of the property, the transaction resulting from that agreement must be treated as an acquisition of capital goods. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 2(1), 14 and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a lease agreement relating to immovable property provides either that ownership of that property is to be transferred to the lessee on the expiry of that agreement or that all the essential powers attaching to ownership of that property are to be enjoyed by the lessee and, in particular, substantially all the rewards and risks incidental to legal ownership of that property are transferred to the lessee and the present value of the amount of the lease payments is practically identical to the market value of the property, the transaction resulting from that agreement must be treated as an acquisition of capital goods.

| 2. | Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not permitting a taxable person to reduce the taxable amount where that person has in fact received all the payments in consideration for the service which he supplied or where, without the agreement having been refused or cancelled, the recipient of that service is no longer liable to the taxable person for the agreed price. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not permitting a taxable person to reduce the taxable amount where that person has in fact received all the payments in consideration for the service which he supplied or where, without the agreement having been refused or cancelled, the recipient of that service is no longer liable to the taxable person for the agreed price.

| 3. | The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding, first, a leasing service relating to immovable property and, second, the sale of that property to a person who is a third party to the lease agreement, being taxed separately for value added tax purposes, where those transactions cannot be regarded as forming a single supply, which is a matter for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding, first, a leasing service relating to immovable property and, second, the sale of that property to a person who is a third party to the lease agreement, being taxed separately for value added tax purposes, where those transactions cannot be regarded as forming a single supply, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany)) — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH

(Case C-229/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Collective redundancies - Concept of ‘worker’ - Member of the board of directors of a limited liability company - Person working under a scheme for training and reintegration into the labour market and benefitting from a public training grant but not receiving remuneration from the employer))

(2015/C 294/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Verden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ender Balkaya

Defendant: Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national law or practice that does not take into account, in the calculation provided for by that provision of the number of workers employed, a member of the board of directors of a capital company, such as the director in question in the main proceedings, who performs his duties under the direction and subject to the supervision of another body of that company, receives remuneration in return for the performance of his duties and does not himself own any shares in the company. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national law or practice that does not take into account, in the calculation provided for by that provision of the number of workers employed, a member of the board of directors of a capital company, such as the director in question in the main proceedings, who performs his duties under the direction and subject to the supervision of another body of that company, receives remuneration in return for the performance of his duties and does not himself own any shares in the company.

| 2. | Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to regard as a worker for the purposes of that provision a person, such as the one in question in the main proceedings, who, while not receiving remuneration from his employer, performs real work within the undertaking in the context of a traineeship — with financial support from, and the recognition of, the public authority responsible for the promotion of employment — in order to acquire or improve skills or complete vocational training. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to regard as a worker for the purposes of that provision a person, such as the one in question in the main proceedings, who, while not receiving remuneration from his employer, performs real work within the undertaking in the context of a traineeship — with financial support from, and the recognition of, the public authority responsible for the promotion of employment — in order to acquire or improve skills or complete vocational training.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-231/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Price-fixing - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates - Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA - Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned))

(2015/C 294/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders InnoLux Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders InnoLux Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida

(Case C-249/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Community figurative mark QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA - Application for registration - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national figurative marks VINHO PÊRAMANCA TINTO, VINHO PÊRAMANCA BRANCO and PÊRAMANCA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 294/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda (represented by J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa, advogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J.M. Pimenta, advogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-331/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value-added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 2(1) and 4(1) - Tax liability - Immovable property transactions - Sale of lands assigned to the private assets of a natural person exercising the profession of sole trader - Taxable person acting as such))

(2015/C 294/17)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings — where a taxable person has acquired plots of land, some of which have been assigned to his private assets and others to his business and, where he has built, in his capacity as a taxable person, upon all of those plots of land, a shopping centre which was then sold together with the plots of land on which the building was erected — the sale of the plots of land which were assigned to that taxable person’s private assets must be subject to value added tax since that person, at the time of that transaction, acted as such.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium)) — The Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier

(Case C-334/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) - Hospital and medical care - Closely related activities - Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care - Self-employed activity - Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis - Establishment of a similar nature))

(2015/C 294/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Belgian State

Defendant: Nathalie De Fruytier

Operative part of the judgment

Neither Article 13(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, nor Article 13(A)(1)(c) thereof, can be interpreted as applying to the transportation, for clinics and laboratories, of human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system. In particular, such an activity does not qualify for an exemption from value added tax as an activity closely related to services of a medical nature as provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(b), since that self-employed third party cannot be characterised as a ‘body governed by public law’ or fall within the definition of a ‘hospital’, a ‘centre for medical treatment’ or a centre for ‘diagnosis’ or any ‘other duly recognised establishment of a similar nature’, operating under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Maria Bucura v SC Bancpost SA

(Case C-348/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 87/102/EEC - Article 1(2)(a) - Consumer credit - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 2(b), 3 to 5 and 6(1) - Unfair terms - Examination by the national court of its own motion - Terms drafted ‘in plain, intelligible language’ - Information which the creditor must provide))

(2015/C 294/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Câmpulung

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Bucura

Defendant: SC Bancpost SA

Intervener: Vasile Ciobanu

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, and Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who becomes a co-debtor under a contract concluded with a seller or supplier comes within the concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of those provisions, since that person is acting for purposes which can be regarded as outside his trade or profession. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, and Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who becomes a co-debtor under a contract concluded with a seller or supplier comes within the concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of those provisions, since that person is acting for purposes which can be regarded as outside his trade or profession.

| 2. | Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to examine of its own motion the unfair nature, within the meaning of that provision, of the terms of a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, since that court has before it the factual and legal elements necessary for that purpose. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to examine of its own motion the unfair nature, within the meaning of that provision, of the terms of a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, since that court has before it the factual and legal elements necessary for that purpose.

| 3. | Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in its assessment of the unfair nature, within the meaning of Article 3(1) and (3) of that directive, of the terms of a consumer credit contract, the national court must take account of all matters surrounding the conclusion of that contract. In that regard, it is for that court to ensure that, in the case at issue, all information which may affect the scale of the consumer’s obligations has been communicated to him, enabling him to assess, in particular, the total cost of his loan. Decisive factors in that assessment are, first, the issue as to whether the terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language in such a way as to allow an average consumer, that is to say, a consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to assess such a cost and, second, the circumstance linked to the lack of mention in the consumer credit contract of information which, in view of the nature of the goods or services which constitute the subject-matter of that contract, is regarded as being essential, in particular that referred to in Article 4 of Directive 87/102, as amended. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in its assessment of the unfair nature, within the meaning of Article 3(1) and (3) of that directive, of the terms of a consumer credit contract, the national court must take account of all matters surrounding the conclusion of that contract. In that regard, it is for that court to ensure that, in the case at issue, all information which may affect the scale of the consumer’s obligations has been communicated to him, enabling him to assess, in particular, the total cost of his loan. Decisive factors in that assessment are, first, the issue as to whether the terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language in such a way as to allow an average consumer, that is to say, a consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to assess such a cost and, second, the circumstance linked to the lack of mention in the consumer credit contract of information which, in view of the nature of the goods or services which constitute the subject-matter of that contract, is regarded as being essential, in particular that referred to in Article 4 of Directive 87/102, as amended.

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Case C-360/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Approximation of laws - Directive 2009/48/EC - Toy safety - Limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys - Commission decision not to approve in full the national provisions notified by the German authorities maintaining the limit values for those substances - Proof of a higher level of protection for human health offered by the national provisions))

(2015/C 294/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents, and by U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova, M. Patakia and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/16

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-575/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme - Termination of the contract by the European Commission - Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant - Distortion of evidence in the file - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder - Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 294/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: M. Sfyri and I. Ampazis, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal,

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2015 — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

(Case C-223/15)

(2015/C 294/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: combit Software GmbH

Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

Question referred
   (1)

In determining the likelihood of confusion of a Community word mark, what is the significance of a situation in which, from the perspective of the average consumer in some Member States, the aural similarity of the Community trade mark with another sign claimed to infringe that trade mark is eliminated by a difference in meaning, whereas from the perspective of the average consumer in other Member States it is not:

| (a) | In determining the likelihood of confusion is the perspective of some Member States, of the other Member States, or that of a fictive EU average consumer decisive? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

In determining the likelihood of confusion is the perspective of some Member States, of the other Member States, or that of a fictive EU average consumer decisive?

| (b) | If there is a likelihood of confusion only in some Member States, has the Community trade mark been infringed across the European Union, or must the Member States be differentiated individually? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If there is a likelihood of confusion only in some Member States, has the Community trade mark been infringed across the European Union, or must the Member States be differentiated individually?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak

(Case C-229/15)

(2015/C 294/23)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Jan Mateusiak

Question referred

Must Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that, on expiry of the adjustment period referred to in Article 187 of the directive, a taxable person’s fixed assets upon the acquisition of which he deducted VAT, should not be subject to tax and included in the winding-up inventory at the time he ceases his activity, if the period laid down in law for adjusting the input tax on the acquisition thereof, which arises from the estimated period for using those assets in the taxable person’s economic activity, has passed, or as meaning that the fixed assets are subject to tax at the time the taxable person ceases his economic activity, regardless of the adjustment period?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

(Case C-231/15)

(2015/C 294/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku

Respondent: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

Question referred

Must the first and third sentences of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) be interpreted as meaning that — in the event that a network provider contests a decision of the national regulatory authority setting call termination rates in the network of that undertaking (MTR decision), and that undertaking then contests a subsequent decision of the national regulatory authority amending a contract between the addressee of the MTR decision and another undertaking so that the rates paid by that other undertaking for call termination in the network of the addressee of the MTR decision correspond to the rates set in the MTR decision (implementing decision) — the national court, having found that the MTR decision has been annulled, cannot annul the implementing decision in view of the fourth sentence of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21 and the interests which the undertaking benefitting from the implementing decision derives from the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations or of legal certainty, or must the first and third sentences of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that the national court may annul the implementing decision of the national regulatory authority and consequently remove the obligations laid down therein for the period preceding the judgment if it finds that that is necessary in order to provide effective protection for the rights of the undertaking appealing against the national regulatory authority’s decision that enforces the obligations laid down in the MTR decision which was subsequently annulled?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/19

---

Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Naazneen Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2015 in Case T-250/13: Naazneen Investments Limited v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

(Case C-252/15 P)

(2015/C 294/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin, I. Rohr, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 in Case T-250/13, |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 in Case T-250/13,

| — | Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in Case R-1101/2011-2, alternatively, remit the case back to the Court, if necessary and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in Case R-1101/2011-2, alternatively, remit the case back to the Court, if necessary and

| — | Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the appellant before the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Board of Appeal and, |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the appellant before the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Board of Appeal and,

| — | Should Energy Brands, Inc. intervene in the proceedings, order Energy Brands, Inc. to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Should Energy Brands, Inc. intervene in the proceedings, order Energy Brands, Inc. to pay its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the General Court misinterpreted the scope of Article 75 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No. 207/2009 (1), did not carry out a correct and complete overall assessment of all evidence provided and all relevant circumstances of the case — or wrongly denied the failure of the Board of Appeal to do so — and did not sufficiently take into account, or misapplied, the principles of the case-law. Also, there is a distortion of facts with respect to several of its findings.

I.   Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009

The General Court erred in law with its finding that the Board of Appeal had given adequate reasons for its decision. In particular, it did not consider that the Board of Appeal had completely ignored pages 6-22 of the Grounds of Appeal and that it had failed to take into consideration all evidence provided and to provide any own arguments for its finding. In the context of proper reasons for non-use, the General Court erred in procedure, because it based its finding on the new aspect of the applicant’s licensee’s alleged obligations to control and supervise the manufacture of the products.

II.   Infringement of Article 51 paragraph 1a of Regulation No. 207/2009

1.   Genuine use

The General Court

| — | Wrongly found that the Board of Appeal had taken into account the affidavits provided, although it had not dealt with the probative value of these affidavits at all, |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrongly found that the Board of Appeal had taken into account the affidavits provided, although it had not dealt with the probative value of these affidavits at all,

| — | Based its finding on wrong facts when it confirmed a very limited economic significance of an order of 12 pallets of bottles in order to carry out ‘test sales’, |
| --- | --- |

—

Based its finding on wrong facts when it confirmed a very limited economic significance of an order of 12 pallets of bottles in order to carry out ‘test sales’,

| — | Wrongly established and applied a rule that a market of significant size — such as that for beverages as products for mass consumption — automatically resulted in higher requirements for extent of use, |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrongly established and applied a rule that a market of significant size — such as that for beverages as products for mass consumption — automatically resulted in higher requirements for extent of use,

| — | Did not observe the principle that there is no continuous use requirement, |
| --- | --- |

—

Did not observe the principle that there is no continuous use requirement,

| — | Erred in law when it found that the reasons why the mark had not been used more extensively and throughout the relevant period only had to be examined in the assessment of the reasons for non-use of that mark, |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in law when it found that the reasons why the mark had not been used more extensively and throughout the relevant period only had to be examined in the assessment of the reasons for non-use of that mark,

| — | Did not take into account the difference between ‘non-use’ cases and ‘limited extent of use cases’, |
| --- | --- |

—

Did not take into account the difference between ‘non-use’ cases and ‘limited extent of use cases’,

| — | Wrongly established a principle that when the Board of Appeal assesses the genuine use of a trademark, it only had to take into account the evidence of the existence of such use and not evidence explaining non-use of that mark, |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrongly established a principle that when the Board of Appeal assesses the genuine use of a trademark, it only had to take into account the evidence of the existence of such use and not evidence explaining non-use of that mark,

| — | Wrongly established a rule that in the context of advertising and other promotional activities, only big campaigns could be relevant, |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrongly established a rule that in the context of advertising and other promotional activities, only big campaigns could be relevant,

| — | Wrongly denied the relevance of printouts from the proprietor’s website and failed to take into account the appellant’s explanations and evidence provided in that regards, |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrongly denied the relevance of printouts from the proprietor’s website and failed to take into account the appellant’s explanations and evidence provided in that regards,

| — | Showed a wrong understanding of the term ‘token’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Showed a wrong understanding of the term ‘token’.

In the context of examining the relevance of a modest commercial volume in (re-)launch phases, the General Court

| — | Made a calculation error, |
| --- | --- |

—

Made a calculation error,

| — | Failed to take into account the defectiveness of the products and the revocation proceedings initiated by a third party as a plausible reason and |
| --- | --- |

—

Failed to take into account the defectiveness of the products and the revocation proceedings initiated by a third party as a plausible reason and

| — | Erred in law with respect to the required quality of reasons for limited extent of use. In the context of genuine use, the reasons for not using the mark to a larger extent do not have to fulfil the requirement of justified reasons for non-use, but it must be sufficient that they make it plausible why the extent has not been larger. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in law with respect to the required quality of reasons for limited extent of use. In the context of genuine use, the reasons for not using the mark to a larger extent do not have to fulfil the requirement of justified reasons for non-use, but it must be sufficient that they make it plausible why the extent has not been larger.

2.   Justifiable reasons for non-use

2.1   Problems concerning the manufacturing of ‘SMART WATER’ beverages

The General Court

| — | Based its finding on a distortion of facts, because there actually had not been any neglect of obligations to control and supervise the manufacture of the products, |
| --- | --- |

—

Based its finding on a distortion of facts, because there actually had not been any neglect of obligations to control and supervise the manufacture of the products,

| — | Showed a wrong understanding to the criteria ‘independently of the will of the trademark proprietor’ and ‘obstacle’ according to Article 19 (1) of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular by not asking whether it would have been unreasonable to produce and market new products but whether it had been impossible, |
| --- | --- |

—

Showed a wrong understanding to the criteria ‘independently of the will of the trademark proprietor’ and ‘obstacle’ according to Article 19 (1) of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular by not asking whether it would have been unreasonable to produce and market new products but whether it had been impossible,

| — | Failed to see that the appellant had provided detailed explanations as to why it had not been possible to easily and quickly continue with the producing and delivering, which neither the Board of appeal nor the General Court itself have taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failed to see that the appellant had provided detailed explanations as to why it had not been possible to easily and quickly continue with the producing and delivering, which neither the Board of appeal nor the General Court itself have taken into consideration.

2.2   Revocation proceedings brought by a third party

The General Court

| — | Failed to see that revocation proceedings are clearly independent of the will of a trademark proprietor, |
| --- | --- |

—

Failed to see that revocation proceedings are clearly independent of the will of a trademark proprietor,

| — | Applied an incorrect standard when it based its finding on the statement that the revocation proceedings did not prevent the proprietor from using the mark, |
| --- | --- |

—

Applied an incorrect standard when it based its finding on the statement that the revocation proceedings did not prevent the proprietor from using the mark,

| — | Established a wrong criterion of ‘direct consequences’: The General Court conceded that, if such revocation proceedings led to the revocation of the mark, an action for damages might be instituted. However, it denied a proper reason for non-use because this was not a ‘direct consequence’ of the revocation proceedings: The findings of the General Court in that regard are contrary to the ratio legis of the requirement of genuine use. The succinct statement that it was up to the proprietor to assess and calculate the risks and either use the mark despite the uncertainty of becoming liable for damages or back down and abstain from using the mark would clearly discriminate small and medium-sized enterprises. This would also open up for an easy possibility of abuse the tool of revocation proceedings by third parties interested in a registered mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Established a wrong criterion of ‘direct consequences’: The General Court conceded that, if such revocation proceedings led to the revocation of the mark, an action for damages might be instituted. However, it denied a proper reason for non-use because this was not a ‘direct consequence’ of the revocation proceedings: The findings of the General Court in that regard are contrary to the ratio legis of the requirement of genuine use. The succinct statement that it was up to the proprietor to assess and calculate the risks and either use the mark despite the uncertainty of becoming liable for damages or back down and abstain from using the mark would clearly discriminate small and medium-sized enterprises. This would also open up for an easy possibility of abuse the tool of revocation proceedings by third parties interested in a registered mark.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

(Case C-255/15)

(2015/C 294/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Steef Mennens

Defendant: Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

Questions referred

| I. | Is Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘ticket’ is the document by which the passenger is (also) entitled to be transported on the flight on which he was downgraded, irrespective of whether further flights, such as connecting flights or return flights, are also indicated on that document? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Is Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘ticket’ is the document by which the passenger is (also) entitled to be transported on the flight on which he was downgraded, irrespective of whether further flights, such as connecting flights or return flights, are also indicated on that document?

| II. | a. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Is Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be further interpreted as meaning that the ‘price of the ticket’ is the amount which the passenger has paid for all of the flights indicated on the ticket, even if the downgrading occurred on only one of the flights? |
| --- | --- | --- |

II.

a.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be further interpreted as meaning that the ‘price of the ticket’ is the amount which the passenger has paid for all of the flights indicated on the ticket, even if the downgrading occurred on only one of the flights?

| b. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  For the purposes of determining the amount which forms the basis for the reimbursement under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, must account be taken of the airline company’s published price for transportation, in the class booked, on the section affected by the downgrade, or must the quotient resulting from the distance of the section affected by the downgrade and the total length of the flight be determined and then multiplied by the total flight price? |
| --- | --- |

b.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

For the purposes of determining the amount which forms the basis for the reimbursement under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, must account be taken of the airline company’s published price for transportation, in the class booked, on the section affected by the downgrade, or must the quotient resulting from the distance of the section affected by the downgrade and the total length of the flight be determined and then multiplied by the total flight price?

| III. | Is Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be further interpreted as meaning that the ‘price of the ticket’ is only the price of the flight alone, to the exclusion of taxes and charges? |
| --- | --- |

III.

Is Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be further interpreted as meaning that the ‘price of the ticket’ is only the price of the flight alone, to the exclusion of taxes and charges?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2015 — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

(Case C-262/15)

(2015/C 294/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

Respondent authority: Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the exception specified in point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 of the Combined Nomenclature (Part II of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013) (2), which is worded ‘armoured fighting vehicles (heading 8710)’, apply also to ‘parts thereof’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the exception specified in point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 of the Combined Nomenclature (Part II of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013) (2), which is worded ‘armoured fighting vehicles (heading 8710)’, apply also to ‘parts thereof’?

| 2. | Must note 3 to Section XVII of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that a ‘weapons station (armoured turret)’ which may be used on armoured fighting vehicles or on ‘mobile maritime transport systems’ or in stationary installations must be classified under heading 8710 as a part of an armoured fighting vehicle because that weapons station was imported by the manufacturer of armoured fighting vehicles for the production or assembly of armoured fighting vehicles and is used in fact for that purpose? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must note 3 to Section XVII of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that a ‘weapons station (armoured turret)’ which may be used on armoured fighting vehicles or on ‘mobile maritime transport systems’ or in stationary installations must be classified under heading 8710 as a part of an armoured fighting vehicle because that weapons station was imported by the manufacturer of armoured fighting vehicles for the production or assembly of armoured fighting vehicles and is used in fact for that purpose?

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 290, p. 1.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 June 2015 — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-263/15)

(2015/C 294/28)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | In the circumstances of the present case, are the applicants acting as taxable persons in view of the fact that the interpretation of Article 9(1) (1) of the VAT Directive does not exclude activities carried out by companies from the scope of the term ‘economic activity’, even when those companies can only engage in commercial activities on an ancillary basis? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the circumstances of the present case, are the applicants acting as taxable persons in view of the fact that the interpretation of Article 9(1) (1) of the VAT Directive does not exclude activities carried out by companies from the scope of the term ‘economic activity’, even when those companies can only engage in commercial activities on an ancillary basis?

| 2. | Should the fact that the applicants receive a significant share of their funding from State aid and the fact that, in the context of the management of their operation, the applicants obtain income from charging modest fees, be taken into account for the purposes of considering whether the applicants are ‘taxable persons’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the fact that the applicants receive a significant share of their funding from State aid and the fact that, in the context of the management of their operation, the applicants obtain income from charging modest fees, be taken into account for the purposes of considering whether the applicants are ‘taxable persons’?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, must it be considered that that ‘fee’ represents consideration for a service and that there is a direct link between the service rendered and the payment of the consideration? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, must it be considered that that ‘fee’ represents consideration for a service and that there is a direct link between the service rendered and the payment of the consideration?

| 4. | Does the management of the investment constitute a supply of services by the applicants, within the meaning of Article 24 of the VAT Directive, or can that management not be regarded as a supply of services on account of the fact that its performance is a legal obligation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the management of the investment constitute a supply of services by the applicants, within the meaning of Article 24 of the VAT Directive, or can that management not be regarded as a supply of services on account of the fact that its performance is a legal obligation?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/23

---

Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

(Case C-264/15 P)

(2015/C 294/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Makro autoservicio mayorista SA (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court:

| — | To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-269/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-269/12;

| — | To rule that the appeal is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

To rule that the appeal is admissible;

| — | To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

| — | To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is brought by Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in case T-269/12, Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. v. Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.

More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:

| — | The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.

| — | Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern. |
| --- | --- |

—

Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.

| — | The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/24

---

Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission

(Case C-265/15 P)

(2015/C 294/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vestel Iberia, SL (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court:

| — | To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-249/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-249/12;

| — | To rule that the appeal is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

To rule that the appeal is admissible;

| — | To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

| — | To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is brought by Vestel Iberia S.L. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in Case T-249/12, Vestel Iberia S.L. v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.

More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:

| — | The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.

| — | Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern. |
| --- | --- |

—

Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.

| — | The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/25

---

Appeal brought on 3 June 2015 by Central Bank of Iran against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-563/12: Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union

(Case C-266/15 P)

(2015/C 294/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Central Bank of Iran (represented by: M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant seeks the following orders:

| — | An order setting aside the decision of the General Court of 25 March 2015 in case T-563/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

An order setting aside the decision of the General Court of 25 March 2015 in case T-563/12;

| — | An order annulling the Contested Measures in so far as they apply to the appellant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

An order annulling the Contested Measures in so far as they apply to the appellant; and

| — | An order that the Council should pay the appellant’s costs both at first instance and of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

An order that the Council should pay the appellant’s costs both at first instance and of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Central Bank of Iran appeals against the judgment of the General Court in case T-563/12 of 25 March 2015, dismissing the appellant’s application for annulment of its inclusion in Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2). The appellant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its appeal.

Ground A. The General Court erred in concluding that the Council had properly assessed whether any of the criteria for listing in the Contested Measures was fulfilled

The General Court erred in conflating the services provided by the appellant pursuant to the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran with ‘financial support’ for the Government of Iran within the meaning of the relevant designation criterion. The services provided by the appellant, as a Central Bank, such as holding accounts and clearing transactions, are not ‘financial support’ of such a qualitative and quantitative importance that it enables the Government of Iran to pursue a nuclear programme. Indeed properly and proportionately construed, those services do not amount to financial support at all.

Ground B: The General Court erred in holding that the Council had complied with its duty to give reasons in Article 296 TFEU

The existence of the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran, which sets out the appellant’s functions and powers as the Central Bank of Iran, does not (contrary to the General Court’s judgment) make it obvious what the Council means by ‘financial support’ in the statement of reasons. The General Court erred in holding that the Council was not required to provide concrete and specific reasons explaining how, and in what ways, it considered that the appellant had provided such support to the Government of Iran.

Ground C: The General Court erred in its finding that the Appellant’s rights of defence had been respected

The General Court also erred in holding that the Council had respected the appellant’s rights of defence. The Council failed to provide any evidence prior to its decision to re-list the appellant. The General Court erred in allowing the Council to supplement the statement of reasons through reliance on the provisions of the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran, which (contrary to the General Court’s judgment) were not obviously implied into the statement of reasons. The appellant was deprived of knowledge of the case against it and was unable to put forward a proper defence.

Ground D: The General Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s plea that the Council had infringed, without justification or proportion, the appellant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property and reputation

The General Court should have found that listing the appellant is disproportionate because it has caused serious hardship to the appellant and to the Iranian people, has no impact on the Government of Iran’s sources of revenue; and will not contribute to the aim of obliging the Government of Iran to end the development of its nuclear proliferation programme.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ L 282, p. 58

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ L 282, p. 16

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2015 — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad; other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

(Case C-269/15)

(2015/C 294/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Respondent: Willem Hoogstad

Other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

Question referred

Must Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community be interpreted as precluding the levying of a contribution — such as the deduction made pursuant to Article 191(1)(7) of the Wet betreffende de verplichte verzekering voor geneeskundige verzorging en uitkeringen, gecoördineerd op 14 juli 1994 (Coordinated Law of 14 July 1994 on compulsory insurance for medical care and benefits) and the solidarity contribution payable pursuant to Article 68 of the Wet van 30 maart 1994 houdende sociale bepalingen (Law of 30 March 1994 concerning welfare provisions) — on benefits derived from Belgian supplementary pension schemes which are not legislation within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(j) of that regulation, in cases where those benefits are owed to an entitled recipient who does not reside in Belgium and who, in accordance with Article 13(2)(f) of that regulation, is subject to the social security legislation of the Member State in which he resides?

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt

(Case C-276/15)

(2015/C 294/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hecht-Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt

Questions referred

| 1. | Do points (1) and (2) of Article 3 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) preclude a national provision such as point (1) of Paragraph 21(2) of the Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on medicinal products) according to which no marketing authorisation is required for medicinal products that are intended for administration to humans and, on account of the proven frequency with which they are the subject of medical and dental prescriptions, the essential manufacturing steps for such are carried out in a pharmacy as part of the normal pharmacy business producing in the course of one day up to one hundred packages ready for dispensation and intended for supply under the existing pharmacy operating licence?
  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do points (1) and (2) of Article 3 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) preclude a national provision such as point (1) of Paragraph 21(2) of the Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on medicinal products) according to which no marketing authorisation is required for medicinal products that are intended for administration to humans and, on account of the proven frequency with which they are the subject of medical and dental prescriptions, the essential manufacturing steps for such are carried out in a pharmacy as part of the normal pharmacy business producing in the course of one day up to one hundred packages ready for dispensation and intended for supply under the existing pharmacy operating licence?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does this conclusion also apply where a national provision such as point (1) of Paragraph 21(2) of the Arzneimittelgesetz is interpreted to mean that no marketing authorisation is required for medicinal products that are intended for administration to humans and, on account of the proven frequency with which they are the subject of medical and dental prescriptions, the essential manufacturing steps for such are carried out in a pharmacy as part of the normal pharmacy business producing in the course of one day up to one hundred packages ready for dispensation and intended for supply under the existing pharmacy operating licence, provided that the medicinal product is either supplied to an individual patient in accordance with a medical prescription, not necessarily submitted before the preparation of the medicinal product, or is prepared in the pharmacy in accordance with the prescriptions of a pharmacopoeia and is intended to be supplied directly to patients? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this conclusion also apply where a national provision such as point (1) of Paragraph 21(2) of the Arzneimittelgesetz is interpreted to mean that no marketing authorisation is required for medicinal products that are intended for administration to humans and, on account of the proven frequency with which they are the subject of medical and dental prescriptions, the essential manufacturing steps for such are carried out in a pharmacy as part of the normal pharmacy business producing in the course of one day up to one hundred packages ready for dispensation and intended for supply under the existing pharmacy operating licence, provided that the medicinal product is either supplied to an individual patient in accordance with a medical prescription, not necessarily submitted before the preparation of the medicinal product, or is prepared in the pharmacy in accordance with the prescriptions of a pharmacopoeia and is intended to be supplied directly to patients?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-277/15)

(2015/C 294/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Servoprax GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | In the case of an in vitro diagnostic medical device for self-testing blood sugar levels which has undergone a conformity assessment by the manufacturer in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC (1) in Member State A (specifically: in the United Kingdom), which bears the CE marking of conformity in accordance with Article 16 of that directive and which meets the essential requirements set out in Article 3 of, and Annex I to, that directive, is a third party required to subject that device to a new or additional conformity assessment in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC before it places the device on the market in Member State B (specifically: in the Federal Republic of Germany) in packaging which contains instructions in the official language of Member State B, which differs from the official language of Member State A (specifically: German as opposed to English) and the instructions for the use of which are enclosed in the official language of Member State B rather than in that of Member State A? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case of an in vitro diagnostic medical device for self-testing blood sugar levels which has undergone a conformity assessment by the manufacturer in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC (1) in Member State A (specifically: in the United Kingdom), which bears the CE marking of conformity in accordance with Article 16 of that directive and which meets the essential requirements set out in Article 3 of, and Annex I to, that directive, is a third party required to subject that device to a new or additional conformity assessment in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC before it places the device on the market in Member State B (specifically: in the Federal Republic of Germany) in packaging which contains instructions in the official language of Member State B, which differs from the official language of Member State A (specifically: German as opposed to English) and the instructions for the use of which are enclosed in the official language of Member State B rather than in that of Member State A?

| 2. | Does it make any difference in this case whether the instructions for use enclosed by the third party correspond word-for-word to the information which the manufacturer of the device uses for the purpose of distribution in Member State B? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it make any difference in this case whether the instructions for use enclosed by the third party correspond word-for-word to the information which the manufacturer of the device uses for the purpose of distribution in Member State B?

---

(1)  Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (OJ 1998 L 331, p. 1), as amended by Commission Directive 2011/100/EU of 20 December 2011 (OJ 2011 L 341, p. 50).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/28

---

Appeal brought on 10 June 2015 by Alexandre Borde and Carbonium against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-314/14: Borde and Carbonium v Commission

(Case C-279/15 P)

(2015/C 294/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Alexandre Borde and Carbonium SAS (represented by: A.B.H. Herzberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the order of the General Court of 25 March 2015, whereby it:






  a. | dismisses the applications as inadmissible; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the General Court of 25 March 2015, whereby it:

a.

dismisses the applications as inadmissible; and

| b. | orders the Applicants to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

b.

orders the Applicants to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.

| — | Declare admissible the Appellants’ application for annulment;
  and






  a.) | Give final judgment in the matter;
  or, alternatively |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Declare admissible the Appellants’ application for annulment;

and

a.)

Give final judgment in the matter;

or, alternatively

| b) | Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits; |
| --- | --- |

b)

Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits;

| — | Alternatively: refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the merits, and for judgment accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively: refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the merits, and for judgment accordingly;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 184, first paragraph of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 184, first paragraph of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the dismissal of their action for annulment was unlawful because (i) the General Court provided an inaccurate and distorted statement of facts, thus disregarding the Appellants’ right to be heard; (ii) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly narrowed down challengeable acts to acts under Article 288 TFEU; (iii) the General Court erred in finding that the contested measures are not decisions under Article 288(4) TFEU; (iv) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly considered decisive whether or not the challenged act is ‘separable from the contractual framework’ and failed to take into account other relevant factors; (v) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly applied criteria developed for bipolar cases to a tripolar case; (vi) the General Court failed to consider the Appellants’ right to an effective judicial remedy as protected under the European Convention for Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

(Case C-281/15)

(2015/C 294/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the scope of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (1) of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10), as defined in Article 1 of that regulation, also include ‘private divorce’, in this instance one pronounced before a religious court in Syria on the basis of sharia? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the scope of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (1) of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10), as defined in Article 1 of that regulation, also include ‘private divorce’, in this instance one pronounced before a religious court in Syria on the basis of sharia?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:






  (a) | In the case of an examination as to whether a divorce is eligible for recognition in national territory, must Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 also be applied? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

(a)

In the case of an examination as to whether a divorce is eligible for recognition in national territory, must Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 also be applied?

| (b) | If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative:






  (1) | Is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the law of the forum grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to different procedural and substantive conditions than access for the first spouse,
  or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative:

(1)

Is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the law of the forum grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to different procedural and substantive conditions than access for the first spouse,

or

| (2) | Does the validity of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Does the validity of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question?

| (c) | If the answer to Question (b)(2) is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If the answer to Question (b)(2) is in the affirmative:

Does the fact that the spouse discriminated against consents to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — itself constitute a ground for not applying that rule?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-282/15)

(2015/C 294/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the TFEU’) in conjunction with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions which prohibit the manufacture or processing and/or marketing of a food supplement with amino acids (here: L-histidine), unless a temporary derogation has been issued at the discretion of the national authority subject to specific additional factual requirements? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the TFEU’) in conjunction with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions which prohibit the manufacture or processing and/or marketing of a food supplement with amino acids (here: L-histidine), unless a temporary derogation has been issued at the discretion of the national authority subject to specific additional factual requirements?

| 2. | Does the scheme of Articles 14, 6, 7, 53 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety mean that national bans on individual foods or food ingredients may only be issued under the conditions set out therein, and does this preclude a national statutory provision as set out at 1 above? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the scheme of Articles 14, 6, 7, 53 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety mean that national bans on individual foods or food ingredients may only be issued under the conditions set out therein, and does this preclude a national statutory provision as set out at 1 above?

| 3. | Is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (2) to be interpreted as precluding a national statutory provision as set out at 1 above? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (2) to be interpreted as precluding a national statutory provision as set out at 1 above?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 404, p. 26.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2015 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-283/15)

(2015/C 294/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of the TFEU relating to free movement be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a European Union citizen who resides in Spain and whose work-related income is taxed in the amount of approximately 60 % by the Netherlands and approximately 40 % by Switzerland may not deduct his negative income incurred in respect of his property in Spain, which is for his personal use, from his work-related income which is taxed in the Netherlands, even if he receives such a low income in Spain, as his State of residence, that the abovementioned negative income in the year in question could not have led to tax relief in the State of residence? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of the TFEU relating to free movement be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a European Union citizen who resides in Spain and whose work-related income is taxed in the amount of approximately 60 % by the Netherlands and approximately 40 % by Switzerland may not deduct his negative income incurred in respect of his property in Spain, which is for his personal use, from his work-related income which is taxed in the Netherlands, even if he receives such a low income in Spain, as his State of residence, that the abovementioned negative income in the year in question could not have led to tax relief in the State of residence?

| 2. | a) | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: must every Member State in which the European Union citizen earns part of his income then take into account the full amount of the abovementioned negative income? Or does that obligation apply to only one of the States concerned in which work is carried out, and if so, to which? Or must each of the States in which work is carried out (not being the State of residence) allow part of that negative income to be deducted? In the latter case, how is that deductible part to be determined? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

a)

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: must every Member State in which the European Union citizen earns part of his income then take into account the full amount of the abovementioned negative income? Or does that obligation apply to only one of the States concerned in which work is carried out, and if so, to which? Or must each of the States in which work is carried out (not being the State of residence) allow part of that negative income to be deducted? In the latter case, how is that deductible part to be determined?

| b) | In this regard, is the Member State in which the work is actually performed the decisive factor, or is the decisive factor which Member State has the power to tax the income earned thereby? |
| --- | --- |

b)

In this regard, is the Member State in which the work is actually performed the decisive factor, or is the decisive factor which Member State has the power to tax the income earned thereby?

| 3. | Would the answer to the two questions set out under (2) be different if one of the States in which the European Union citizen earns his income is Switzerland, which is not a Member State of the European Union and also does not belong to the European Economic Area? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would the answer to the two questions set out under (2) be different if one of the States in which the European Union citizen earns his income is Switzerland, which is not a Member State of the European Union and also does not belong to the European Economic Area?

| 4. | To what extent is it significant in this regard whether the legislation of the taxpayer’s country of residence (in this case, Spain) makes provision for the possibility of deducting mortgage interest relating to the taxpayer’s property and the possibility of offsetting the tax losses arising therefrom in the year in question against possible income earned in that country in later years? |
| --- | --- |

4.

To what extent is it significant in this regard whether the legislation of the taxpayer’s country of residence (in this case, Spain) makes provision for the possibility of deducting mortgage interest relating to the taxpayer’s property and the possibility of offsetting the tax losses arising therefrom in the year in question against possible income earned in that country in later years?

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS) v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-288/15)

(2015/C 294/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Question referred

Does classification under subheading 6211 33 10 00 0 ‘Industrial and occupational clothing’ of the Combined Nomenclature (1) depend solely on external appearance or intended use, or does General Rule 3(b) require that consideration be given to those components of the goods which give them their essential character?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 amending Annex I (OJ 2012 L 304, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Jozef Grundza

(Case C-289/15)

(2015/C 294/40)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Party to the main proceedings

Jozef Grundza

Question referred

On a proper interpretation of Articles 7(3) and 9(1)(d) of the Framework Decision (1), is the condition of double criminality to be considered satisfied only where the facts to which the decision to be recognised refers constitute an offence in concreto, i.e. on the basis of a concrete assessment of the facts (whatever its constituent elements or however it is described) also in the law of the executing State, or is that condition sufficiently satisfied where the facts generally constitute (in abstracto) an offence also in the legal order of the executing State?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2015 — Hörmann Reisen GmbH v Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

(Case C-292/15)

(2015/C 294/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Vergabekammer Südbayern

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hörmann Reisen GmbH

Defendants: Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

Questions referred

| 1. | In the case of an award procedure under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC (2) or Directive 2014/24/EU, (3) in principle are the provisions of those directives alone applicable, with the result that any provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 which derogate from those directives are not to be applied? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case of an award procedure under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC (2) or Directive 2014/24/EU, (3) in principle are the provisions of those directives alone applicable, with the result that any provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 which derogate from those directives are not to be applied?

| 2. | In the case of an award procedure under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/24/EU, is the permissibility of subcontracting therefore governed exclusively by the rules developed by the Court of Justice in connection with Directive 2004/18/EC and by the provisions of Article 63(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU or can a contracting authority, in derogation from the foregoing, stipulate a percentage rate of self-provision (measured in timetable kilometres), in accordance with Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, even in the case of an award procedure of the kind mentioned above? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the case of an award procedure under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/24/EU, is the permissibility of subcontracting therefore governed exclusively by the rules developed by the Court of Justice in connection with Directive 2004/18/EC and by the provisions of Article 63(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU or can a contracting authority, in derogation from the foregoing, stipulate a percentage rate of self-provision (measured in timetable kilometres), in accordance with Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, even in the case of an award procedure of the kind mentioned above?

| 3. | In the event that Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is applicable to award procedures under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/24/EU, does the determination of the self-provision rate lie within the discretion of the contracting authority, taking into account recital 19 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, with the result that the requirement by the contracting authority of a self-provision rate of 70 %, measured in timetable kilometres, is justifiable? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is applicable to award procedures under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/24/EU, does the determination of the self-provision rate lie within the discretion of the contracting authority, taking into account recital 19 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, with the result that the requirement by the contracting authority of a self-provision rate of 70 %, measured in timetable kilometres, is justifiable?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

(2)  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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

(3)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring B.V. v Orifarm A/S

(Case C-297/15)

(2015/C 294/42)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsretten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring B.V.

Defendant: Orifarm A/S

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and the related case-law be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may lawfully object to the continued marketing of a medicinal product by a parallel importer, where the importer has repackaged the medicinal product in a new, outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark in a situation where the trade mark proprietor has marketed the medicinal product in the same volume and packet sizes in all EEA countries where the medicinal product is sold? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and the related case-law be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may lawfully object to the continued marketing of a medicinal product by a parallel importer, where the importer has repackaged the medicinal product in a new, outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark in a situation where the trade mark proprietor has marketed the medicinal product in the same volume and packet sizes in all EEA countries where the medicinal product is sold?

| 2. | Will the answer to the first question be different if the trade mark proprietor in both the country of export and the country of import has marketed the medicinal product in two different packet sizes (10-piece packets and 1-piece packets) and the importer has purchased 10-piece packets in the country of export and repackaged them in 1-piece packets, on which the trade mark has been reaffixed before the products are marketed in the country of import? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the answer to the first question be different if the trade mark proprietor in both the country of export and the country of import has marketed the medicinal product in two different packet sizes (10-piece packets and 1-piece packets) and the importer has purchased 10-piece packets in the country of export and repackaged them in 1-piece packets, on which the trade mark has been reaffixed before the products are marketed in the country of import?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes

(Case C-300/15)

(2015/C 294/43)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser

Defendant: Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes

Question referred

Does the principle of freedom of movement for workers, as enshrined in particular in Article 45 TFEU, preclude the provisions of Article 139ter(1) of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income tax, as amended, in so far as they restrict eligibility for the tax credit established there to persons in possession of a tax deduction form?

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier ministre

(Case C-301/15)

(2015/C 294/44)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Soulier, Sara Doke

Defendants: Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, Premier ministre

Question referred

Do the provisions, referred to above, of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 (1), preclude legislation, such as that analysed in paragraph 1 of this decision, that gives approved collecting societies the right to authorise the reproduction and the representation in digital form of ‘out-of-print books’, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that it lays down?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

(Case C-302/15)

(2015/C 294/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Correos y Telégrafos SA

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

Question referred

Do Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 7 of Directive 2008/6/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC (2) with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services preclude national legislation which, as a means of financing the universal postal service, provides for tax exemptions in relation to the activities of that service?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 24 June 2015 — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

(Case C-305/15)

(2015/C 294/46)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delta Air Lines Inc.

Defendants: Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation, when the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passenger is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellation and therefore delay? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation, when the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passenger is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellation and therefore delay?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how is that to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009 in Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:716, under which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the EU Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012 in Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:657 that delays of over three hours’ duration cannot be taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how is that to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009 in Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:716, under which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the EU Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012 in Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:657 that delays of over three hours’ duration cannot be taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA

(Case C-310/15)

(2015/C 294/47)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vincent Deroo-Blanquart

Defendant: Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes a misleading unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer of the computer has, via its retailer, provided information on each item of pre-installed software, but has not specified the cost of each individual component? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes a misleading unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer of the computer has, via its retailer, provided information on each item of pre-installed software, but has not specified the cost of each individual component?

| 2. | Must Article 5 of Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes an unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer leaves the consumer no choice other than to accept the software or cancel the sale? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5 of Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes an unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer leaves the consumer no choice other than to accept the software or cancel the sale?

| 3. | Must Article 5 of Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes an unfair commercial practice where the consumer is unable to obtain a computer which is not equipped with software from the computer manufacturer? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 5 of Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes an unfair commercial practice where the consumer is unable to obtain a computer which is not equipped with software from the computer manufacturer?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2015 — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi

(Case C-311/15)

(2015/C 294/48)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TrustBuddy AB

Defendant: Lauri Pihjalaniemi

Question referred

Is Article 3(b) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that that a trader is to be regarded as a creditor if it markets credit to consumers via the internet in the form of so-called peer-to-peer lending and exercises, as regards the consumers, the decision-making power generally appertaining to creditors with respect to the terms and conditions, the granting of credit and debt recovery, even though the funds for credits come from anonymous private individuals and are kept separate from the trader’s own funds?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS

(Case C-313/15)

(2015/C 294/49)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eco-Emballages SA

Defendants: Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS

Question referred

Does the concept of packaging, as defined in Article 3 of Directive 94/62/EC, amended by Directive 2004/12/EC (1), include ‘roll cores’ (rolls, tubes, cylinders) around which flexible material, such as paper or plastic film, is wound and sold to consumers?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 26).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/39

---

Action brought on 26 June 2015 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-314/15)

(2015/C 294/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

| — | a declaration that in not having assured the secondary treatment or equivalent of urban waste water from 15 agglomerations having a population equivalent between 10  000 and 15  000 for all discharges outside sensitive areas, being a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 for all discharges in fresh water and estuaries, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1). |
| --- | --- |

—

a declaration that in not having assured the secondary treatment or equivalent of urban waste water from 15 agglomerations having a population equivalent between 10  000 and 15  000 for all discharges outside sensitive areas, being a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 for all discharges in fresh water and estuaries, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1).

| — | that the French Republic should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the French Republic should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the Commission complains that France has failed to implement correctly, in 15 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.

Pursuant to Article 4(1) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC, agglomerations where the population equivalent (p.e.) is between 10  000 and 15  000 for all discharges outside sensitive areas, being a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 for all discharges in fresh water and estuaries, must be equipped with collecting systems and waste water undergo a secondary treatment or the equivalent by 31 December 2005 at the latest.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Rodange et Schifflange SA v State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-321/15)

(2015/C 294/51)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Rodange et Schifflange SA

Defendant: State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Question referred

Is Article 13(6) of the amended Law of 23 December 2004 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading, in so far as it allows the competent minister to order the surrender, without full or partial compensation of allowances issued in accordance with Article 12(2) and (4) of that law, but not used, compatible with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and more particularly with the broad logic of the emissions trading scheme provided for by that directive, that question encompassing the issue of the legal validity of the surrender of allowances which have been issued but not used, and, if that question is answered in the affirmative, of their classification, as well as that of the possible classification of such allowances as property?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 July 2015 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet

(Case C-327/15)

(2015/C 294/52)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TDC A/S

Defendants: Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘the Universal Service Directive’), (1) including Article 32, preclude a Member State from laying down rules which do not allow an undertaking to lodge a claim against the Member State for separate recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that Directive, where the undertaking’s profits from other services which are covered by the undertaking’s universal service obligations under Chapter II of that Directive exceed the losses associated with the provision of the additional mandatory services? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘the Universal Service Directive’), (1) including Article 32, preclude a Member State from laying down rules which do not allow an undertaking to lodge a claim against the Member State for separate recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that Directive, where the undertaking’s profits from other services which are covered by the undertaking’s universal service obligations under Chapter II of that Directive exceed the losses associated with the provision of the additional mandatory services?

| 2. | Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules allowing undertakings to lodge a claim against the Member State for recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services which are not covered by Chapter II of that Directive, only if the net costs amount to an unreasonable burden for the undertakings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules allowing undertakings to lodge a claim against the Member State for recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services which are not covered by Chapter II of that Directive, only if the net costs amount to an unreasonable burden for the undertakings?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative, may the Member State decide that there is no unreasonable burden associated with the provision of additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the undertaking as a whole has achieved profits from the provision of all those services where that undertaking has a universal service obligation, including the provision of services which the undertaking would have provided even without having the universal service obligation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative, may the Member State decide that there is no unreasonable burden associated with the provision of additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the undertaking as a whole has achieved profits from the provision of all those services where that undertaking has a universal service obligation, including the provision of services which the undertaking would have provided even without having the universal service obligation?

| 4. | Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules that a designated undertaking’s net costs associated with the provision of universal service pursuant to Chapter II of that directive are to be calculated on the basis of all income and costs associated with the provision of the service in question, including that income and those costs which the undertaking also would have had without having the universal service obligation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules that a designated undertaking’s net costs associated with the provision of universal service pursuant to Chapter II of that directive are to be calculated on the basis of all income and costs associated with the provision of the service in question, including that income and those costs which the undertaking also would have had without having the universal service obligation?

| 5. | If the national rules in question (see Questions 1 to 4) are applied to an additional mandatory service that has to be provided not only in Denmark but in both Denmark and Greenland, which by virtue of Annex II to the TFEU is an overseas country or territory, do the answers to Questions 1 to 4 then also apply to that part of the requirement that relates to Greenland, where the service is entrusted by the Danish authorities to an undertaking established in Denmark and that undertaking has no other activities in Greenland? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the national rules in question (see Questions 1 to 4) are applied to an additional mandatory service that has to be provided not only in Denmark but in both Denmark and Greenland, which by virtue of Annex II to the TFEU is an overseas country or territory, do the answers to Questions 1 to 4 then also apply to that part of the requirement that relates to Greenland, where the service is entrusted by the Danish authorities to an undertaking established in Denmark and that undertaking has no other activities in Greenland?

| 6. | Of what relevance are Articles 107(1) TFEU and 108(3) TFEU and the Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) TFEU to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (2) for the answers to Questions 1 to 5? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Of what relevance are Articles 107(1) TFEU and 108(3) TFEU and the Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) TFEU to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (2) for the answers to Questions 1 to 5?

| 7. | Of what relevance is the principle of minimum distortion of competition in inter alia Article 1(2) and Article 3(2) of and recitals 4, 18, 23 and 26 in the preamble and Part B of Annex IV to the Universal Service Directive for the answers to Questions 1 to 5? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Of what relevance is the principle of minimum distortion of competition in inter alia Article 1(2) and Article 3(2) of and recitals 4, 18, 23 and 26 in the preamble and Part B of Annex IV to the Universal Service Directive for the answers to Questions 1 to 5?

| 8. | If the provisions of the Universal Service Directive preclude national schemes as referred to in Questions 1, 2 and 4, do those provisions or preclusions have direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

8.

If the provisions of the Universal Service Directive preclude national schemes as referred to in Questions 1, 2 and 4, do those provisions or preclusions have direct effect?

| 9. | What more specific factors should be considered when assessing whether a national time limit for applications as described in point 3.17, and its application, are consistent with the principles of cooperation in good faith, equivalence and effectiveness in EU law? |
| --- | --- |

9.

What more specific factors should be considered when assessing whether a national time limit for applications as described in point 3.17, and its application, are consistent with the principles of cooperation in good faith, equivalence and effectiveness in EU law?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p 51.

(2)  OJ 2012 L 7, p. 3.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/41

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2015 — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

(Case C-335/15)

(2015/C 294/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

Question referred

| 1. | Do Article 11, first paragraph, subparagraphs 1, 2(b) and (3), and the last and penultimate recitals in the preamble to Council Directive 92/85/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 and Article 157(1), (2) and (4) TFEU (formerly Article 141(1), (2) and (4) EC), Article 158 TFEU (formerly Article 142 EC), where it requires that ‘Member States shall endeavour to maintain the existing equivalence between paid holiday schemes’, Articles 2(2)(c) and 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, read together, and Article 15 and recitals 23 and 24 in the preamble to that directive, and, finally, Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1), preclude national legislation which, by virtue of Article 3(1) of Law No 27 of 19 February 1981, in the version prior to the amendment made by Article 1(325) of Law No 311 of 30 December 2004, does not allow payment of the allowance provided for therein for periods of compulsory maternity leave prior to 1 January 2005? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 11, first paragraph, subparagraphs 1, 2(b) and (3), and the last and penultimate recitals in the preamble to Council Directive 92/85/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 and Article 157(1), (2) and (4) TFEU (formerly Article 141(1), (2) and (4) EC), Article 158 TFEU (formerly Article 142 EC), where it requires that ‘Member States shall endeavour to maintain the existing equivalence between paid holiday schemes’, Articles 2(2)(c) and 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, read together, and Article 15 and recitals 23 and 24 in the preamble to that directive, and, finally, Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1), preclude national legislation which, by virtue of Article 3(1) of Law No 27 of 19 February 1981, in the version prior to the amendment made by Article 1(325) of Law No 311 of 30 December 2004, does not allow payment of the allowance provided for therein for periods of compulsory maternity leave prior to 1 January 2005?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC 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 (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, pp. 1-7).

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC 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) (OJ 2006 L 204, pp. 23-36).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/42

---

Appeal brought on 6 July 2015 by the European Ombudsman against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman

(Case C-337/15 P)

(2015/C 294/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Ombudsman (represented by: G. Grill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Claire Staelen

Form of order sought

Principally:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-217/11 in so far as it concludes that the Ombudsman committed several unlawful acts which constitute sufficiently serious infringements of EU law, that non-material damage was established and that there is a causal link between the unlawful acts identified by the General Court and that non-material damage, and in so far as it orders the Ombudsman to pay compensation amounting to EUR 7  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-217/11 in so far as it concludes that the Ombudsman committed several unlawful acts which constitute sufficiently serious infringements of EU law, that non-material damage was established and that there is a causal link between the unlawful acts identified by the General Court and that non-material damage, and in so far as it orders the Ombudsman to pay compensation amounting to EUR 7  000;

| — | dismiss the application as unfounded in so far as the judgment of the General Court is set aside; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the application as unfounded in so far as the judgment of the General Court is set aside;

In the alternative,

| — | refer the case back to the General Court in so far as the judgment of the General Court is set aside; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court in so far as the judgment of the General Court is set aside; and

| — | make an order as to costs in a fair and just way. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to costs in a fair and just way.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Ombudsman invokes grounds alleging several errors of law.

In the first place, it claims that the General Court erred in law by holding that a mere infringement of the principle of diligence sufficed for the purpose of establishing the existence of a sufficiently serious infringement. The Ombudsman considers that that reasoning of the General Court is not compatible with the case-law in the area of non-contractual liability, which requires a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals to be established and which states that the decisive test for finding that that requirement is fulfilled is whether the Community institution concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits set on its discretion. The General Court omitted to take into account the specific nature of the function of the Ombudsman and in particular the fact that the latter has a very wide discretion with regard to the conduct of investigations.

In the second place, the Ombudsman contests also the General Court’s interpretation relating to the fact that, when he conducts an investigation, and an institution gives him an explanation which appears to him to be credible, that does not exempt him from his duty to ascertain whether the facts on which that explanation is based are established, in particular where that explanation is the only basis for his finding that there is no maladministration. The Ombudsman considers that the institutions are required to provide it with correct information and that it is therefore reasonable that he base his findings on the information provided to him, as long as there is no evidence which could call into question the reliability of the information provided. From that point of view, the Ombudsman claims that there was no reason to fear that the information provided did not correspond with the facts.

In the third place, although the Ombudsman agrees with the General Court that certain of the Ombudsman’s answers were made unreasonably late, the Ombudsman disputes that that infringement of European law which he is alleged to have committed may be classified as sufficiently serious. Consequently, the non-contractual liability of the EU cannot be triggered.

In the fourth place, the Ombudsman considers that the General Court erred in law by failing to provide an explanation with regard to the classification of the damage to Mrs Staelen’s trust in the office of Ombudsman as non-material harm.

In the last place, the Ombudsman contests the existence of a causal link between the irregularities he is alleged to have committed and the loss of Mrs Staelen’s confidence in the office of the Ombudsman.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/43

---

Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Claire Staelen against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman

(Case C-338/15 P)

(2015/C 294/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment delivered on 29 April 2015 by the General Court in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered on 29 April 2015 by the General Court in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman;

| — | therefore, uphold the appellant’s application for compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of the conduct adversely affecting her, the amount of which the appellant calculates at EUR 50  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

therefore, uphold the appellant’s application for compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of the conduct adversely affecting her, the amount of which the appellant calculates at EUR 50  000;

| — | rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance except her application for compensation for material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance except her application for compensation for material damage;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant invokes six grounds in support of her appeal all alleging errors of law and distortion of the facts.

In the first place, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in so far as the appellant refused to allow the investigation on the initiative of the Ombudsman. The General Court also distorted the subject-matter of the complaint.

In the second place, she claims that the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 228 TFEU and Decision 94/262 (1) by depriving them of effectiveness.

In the third place, she claims that the General Court distorted the facts with regard to the duration of the discrimination relating to inclusion in the lists of suitable candidates.

In the fourth place, she complains that the General Court distorted the facts and erred in law by holding that the Ombudsman did not infringe its duty of transparency and due diligence.

In the fifth place, she complains that the General Court declared inapplicable the Decision of the President of the European Parliament, of 23 February 2003, and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

In the last place, she considers that the General Court was wrong to hold that the Ombudsman did not have to examine the entire destruction of the competition dossier.

---

(1)  Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/44

---

Appeal brought on 10 July 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-470/11 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case C-351/15 P)

(2015/C 294/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Total SA, ELF Aquitaine SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 in Case T-470/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 in Case T-470/11;

| — | declare the action brought before the General Court to be inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action brought before the General Court to be inadmissible;

| — | order the respondents in the appeal to pay all of the costs pertaining to the present proceedings and to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondents in the appeal to pay all of the costs pertaining to the present proceedings and to the proceedings at first instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward the following three grounds.

According to the first and second grounds of appeal, the judgment under appeal wrongly rejects the Commission’s submission that the action is inadmissible. In the context of the first ground of appeal, the Commission argues that the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the letters of 24 June and 8 July 2011 from the Commission’s accountant produced binding legal effects. The accountant’s letters, it submits, are in fact mere requests for payment in implementation of the Methacrylates decision and pave the way for the potential enforcement of that decision following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-217/06 (1), which reduced the amount of the fine imposed on Arkema, whereas the judgment delivered on the same day in Case T-206/06 (2) (subsequently upheld by the order of the Court of Justice in Case C-421/11 P (3)) upheld the fines imposed on the present respondents. The accountant’s letters are not yet an enforcement measure and therefore do not set out a ‘final position’ of the Commission. Moreover, the accountant’s letters do not produce binding legal effects distinct from those of the Methacrylates decision, which decision is no longer amenable to challenge following the exhaustion of the respondents’ remedies. The second ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal fails to respect the principles of lis pendens and res judicata, resulting from the order of the Court of Justice in Case C-421/11 P.

Lastly, the third ground of appeal, which concerns contradictory reasoning, is presented in the alternative, should the Court reject the first and second grounds. The General Court, it is submitted, incorrectly found in paragraph 113 that the rights of the Commission in relation to both Arkema and the defendants which were jointly and severally liable for payment had been fully satisfied, even though the General Court had correctly noted in paragraph 9 that Arkema regretted not being able to authorise the Commission to withhold a sum of any amount in the event that its action before the EU Courts was successful. That contradictory reasoning, the Commission argues, affects the reasoning of the General Court on the merits of the case and constitutes a sufficient ground for setting aside the judgment under appeal.

---

(1)  ECLI:EU:T:2011:251.

(2)  ECLI:EU:T:2011:250.

(3)  ECLI:EU:C:2012:60.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/45

---

Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by Bank of Industry and Mine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-10/13 Bank of Industry and Mine v Council

(Case C-358/15 P)

(2015/C 294/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bank of Industry and Mine (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Perrotet, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of the European Union in Case T-10/13, notified to the appellant on 5 May 2015, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by Bank of Industry and Mine in that case and ordered it to pay all of the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of the European Union in Case T-10/13, notified to the appellant on 5 May 2015, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by Bank of Industry and Mine in that case and ordered it to pay all of the costs;

| — | grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on seven grounds in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 99 of its judgment, that Decision 2012/635 (1) had been taken by the Council pursuant to Article 29 TEU and by drawing the conclusion, in paragraph 101, that that decision did not have to be subject to the requirements laid down in Article 215(2) TFEU. The General Court also erred in law by holding, in paragraph 105 of its judgment, that the Council was correct to provide for implementing powers pursuant to the provisions of Article 291(2) TFEU. In addition, the Council also erred in law by finding that the conditions laid down for relying on Article 291(1) TFEU had been satisfied. Article 215 TFEU, it submits, is the only procedure applicable to restrictive measures. Article 291(2) TFEU could not therefore be applied since that article is applicable only to measures necessitating implementing measures. Measures for the freezing of funds are, however, in essence, implementing measures. Such measures cannot therefore fall within the substantive scope of application of Article 291(2) TFEU. Furthermore, the conditions laid down for recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU are not satisfied because the Council did not, in the contested decisions, properly justify its reliance on that procedure.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant also claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), as amended by Decision 2012/35 (3), Decision 2012/635 and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 (4), did not contravene the principles of legal certainty and predictability, proportionality and the right to property. The criterion of quantitative and qualitative significance referred to in paragraph 79 of the General Court’s judgment is not mentioned in the contested acts. The General Court thus artificially created it in order to uphold the contested acts. In addition, that criterion is in itself vague, imprecise and disproportionate. The General Court therefore erred in law in finding that the fact that the appellant had transferred a contribution to the Iranian State constituted support within the meaning of the contested acts.

By its third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 135 and 136 of its judgment in holding that the contested acts were sufficiently reasoned, even though the General Court itself recognised in paragraph 134 of that judgment that the contested acts did not take account of the extent and the detailed arrangements of the support attributed to the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant was unable, on a reading of the contested acts, to understand the reasons for which it had been sanctioned, a fact which points to an inadequacy in the reasoning.

By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 163 of its judgment, that the failure to re-examine the position of the appellant within the prescribed period was not capable of rendering unlawful its maintenance on the list of sanctioned entities despite the fact that that obligation is one which is strictly objective.

By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that the contested decisions did not infringe the appellant’s fundamental rights and were not disproportionate despite the fact that those contested decisions were vague and imprecise. Similarly, the criterion of quantitative and qualitative significance laid down by the General Court was inherently arbitrary.

By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 179 and 183 of its judgment in finding that the appellant was supporting the Iranian Government on the ground that it had transferred a mandatory contribution despite the fact that that contribution was merely a tax and that the appellant was in the same situation as any ordinary taxpayer.

By its final ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to find that the Council had contravened the principle of non-discrimination by sanctioning the appellant for having transferred a contribution to the Iranian State, without sanctioning all of the undertakings which were subject to that contribution.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58).

(2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

(3)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/47

---

Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by The National Iranian Gas Company against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-9/13 The National Iranian Gas Company v Council

(Case C-359/15 P)

(2015/C 294/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: The National Iranian Gas Company (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Perrotet, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of the European Union in Case T-9/13, notified to the appellant on 5 May 2015, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the National Iranian Gas Company in that case and ordered it to pay the entire costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of the European Union in Case T-9/13, notified to the appellant on 5 May 2015, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the National Iranian Gas Company in that case and ordered it to pay the entire costs of the proceedings;

| — | grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on eight grounds in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 82 of its judgment, that Decision 2012/635 (1) had been taken by the Council pursuant to Article 29 TEU and by drawing the conclusion, in paragraph 84, that that decision did not have to be subject to the requirements laid down in Article 215(2) TFEU. The General Court, it submits, also erred in law by holding, in paragraph 90 of its judgment, that the Council was correct to provide for implementing powers pursuant to the provisions of Article 291(2) TFEU. In addition, the Council also erred in law by finding that the conditions laid down for relying on Article 291(1) TFEU had been satisfied. Article 215 TFEU, it argues, is the only procedure applicable to restrictive measures. Article 291(2) TFEU could not therefore be applied since that article is applicable only to measures necessitating implementing measures. Measures for the freezing of funds are, however, in essence, implementing measures. Such measures cannot therefore fall within the substantive scope of application of Article 291(2) TFEU. Furthermore, the conditions laid down for recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU are not satisfied because the Council did not, in the contested decisions, properly justify its reliance on that procedure.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant also claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), as amended by Decision 2012/35 (3), Decision 2012/635 and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 (4), did not contravene the principles of legal certainty and predictability, proportionality and the right to property. The criterion of quantitative and qualitative significance referred to in paragraph 61 of the General Court’s judgment is not mentioned in the contested acts. The General Court thus artificially created it in order to uphold the contested acts. In addition, that criterion is in itself vague, imprecise and disproportionate. The General Court therefore erred in law in finding that the fact that the appellant had transferred a contribution to the Iranian State constituted support within the meaning of the contested acts.

By its third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 116 and 117 of its judgment in holding that the contested acts were sufficiently reasoned, whereas the General Court itself recognised in paragraph 115 of that judgment that the contested acts did not take account of the extent and the detailed arrangements of the support attributed to the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant was unable, on a reading of the contested acts, to understand the reasons for which it had been sanctioned, a fact which points to an inadequacy in the reasoning.

By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 141 of its judgment, that the failure to re-examine the position of the appellant within the prescribed period was not capable of rendering unlawful its maintenance on the list of sanctioned entities despite the fact that that obligation is one which is strictly objective.

By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that the contested decisions did not infringe the appellant’s fundamental rights and were not disproportionate notwithstanding the fact that those contested decisions were vague and imprecise. Similarly, the criterion of quantitative and qualitative significance laid down by the General Court was inherently arbitrary.

By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 163 and 164 of its judgment in finding that the appellant was supporting the Iranian Government on the ground that it had transferred a mandatory contribution despite the fact that that contribution was merely a tax and that the appellant was in the same situation as any ordinary taxpayer.

By its seventh ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to find that the Council had contravened the principle of non-discrimination by sanctioning the appellant for having transferred a contribution to the Iranian State, without sanctioning all of the undertakings which were subject to that contribution.

By its final ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by substituting grounds in paragraph 159 of its judgment.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58).

(2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

(3)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/48

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission

(Case C-373/15 P)

(2015/C 294/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission;

| — | itself adjudicate definitively on the dispute by annulling Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) to the extent to which that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic in relation to Axis 2 of the Plan for Rural Development in France in respect of the accounting years 2008 and 2009, or refer the case back to the General Court for it to adjudicate on the dispute; |
| --- | --- |

—

itself adjudicate definitively on the dispute by annulling Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) to the extent to which that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic in relation to Axis 2 of the Plan for Rural Development in France in respect of the accounting years 2008 and 2009, or refer the case back to the General Court for it to adjudicate on the dispute;

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the French Government raises three grounds of appeal against the judgment under appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in failing to raise, of its own motion, a ground concerning the infringement of an essential procedural requirement, even though the Commission had failed to adopt its contested decision within a reasonable period.

By its second ground of appeal, raised in the alternative, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had not misinterpreted Articles 10 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (2) (‘Regulation No 1975/2006’) by imposing on the French authorities the obligation to count animals during the on-the-spot controls carried out in relation to ICHN (Indemnités compensatoires des handicaps naturels; compensatory allowances for natural handicaps) aid measures.

By its third ground of appeal, raised in the further alternative, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the on-the-spot controls carried out in the context of managing the identification of bovine or sheep premiums do not constitute on-the-spot checks in accordance with Article 12 et seq. of Regulation No 1975/2006.

Consequently, the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it rejects the first plea raised by the French Government in favour of annulment of the Commission’s contested decision.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

---

General Court

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/50

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission

(Case T-172/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 294/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stahlwerk Bous GmbH (Bous, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 4. | Stahlwerk Bous GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Stahlwerk Bous GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 5. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/51

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — WeserWind v Commission

(Case T-173/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte (Bremerhaven, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and A. Steinarsdóttir, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 3. | WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/51

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission

(Case T-174/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and J. Kaasin, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 3. | Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/52

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Walter Hundhausen v Commission

(Case T-175/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Walter Hundhausen GmbH (Schwerte, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and G. Mathisen, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 3. | Walter Hundhausen GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Walter Hundhausen GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/53

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission

(Case T-176/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 294/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH (Georgsmarienhütte, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and C. Howdle, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 4. | Georgsmarienhütte GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Georgsmarienhütte GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 5. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/54

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Harz Guss Zorge v Commission

(Case T-177/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 294/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Harz Guss Zorge GmbH (Zorge, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and A. Steinarsdóttir, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 4. | Harz Guss Zorge GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Harz Guss Zorge GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 5. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/55

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission

(Case T-178/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss GmbH (Mülheim-an-der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and J. Kaasin, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 3. | Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/56

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission

(Case T-179/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schmiedewerke Gröditz GmbH (Gröditz, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and G. Mathisen, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 3. | Schmiedewerke Gröditz GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Schmiedewerke Gröditz GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/57

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedag v Commission

(Case T-183/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 294/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schmiedag GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and C. Howdle, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

| 4. | Schmiedag GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Schmiedag GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 5. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/57

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission

(Case T-230/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Edelstahlwerke GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Deutsche Edelstahlwerke GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Deutsche Edelstahlwerke GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/58

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Hamburg and Others v Commission

(Case T-235/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: ArcelorMittal Hamburg GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH, successor in law to Bregal Bremer Galvanisierungs GmbH (Bremen, Germany); ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH (Duisburg, Germany); and ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH (Duisburg) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | ArcelorMittal Hamburg GmbH, ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH, ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH and ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

ArcelorMittal Hamburg GmbH, ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH, ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH and ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/59

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Kronotex and Kronoply v Commission

(Case T-236/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany); and Kronoply GmbH (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Kronetex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Kronetex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/60

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Steinbeis Papier v Commission

(Case T-237/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinbeis Papier GmbH (Glückstadt, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Steinbeis Papier GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Steinbeis Papier GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/60

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schumacher Packaging v Commission

(Case T-265/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schumacher Packaging GmbH (Schwarzenberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Schumacher Packaging GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Schumacher Packaging GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/61

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers v Commission

(Case T-270/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH (Guben, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. Kobes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/62

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission

(Case T-272/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz (Oschatz, Germany); P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH (Erbach, Germany); P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH (Wilsdruff, Germany); and Glashütte Freital GmbH (Freital, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz, P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH, P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH and Glashütte Freital GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz, P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH, P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH and Glashütte Freital GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/63

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others v Commission

(Case T-275/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Drahtwerk St. Ingbert GmbH (Sankt Ingbert, Germany); DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH (Cologne, Germany); Kalksteingrube Auersmacher GmbH (Völklingen, Germany); Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany); Stahlguss Saar GmbH (Sankt Ingbert); and Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH (Dillingen) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Drahtwerk St. lngbert GmbH, DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH, Kalksteingrube Auersmacher GmbH, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH, Stahlguss Saar GmbH and Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Drahtwerk St. lngbert GmbH, DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH, Kalksteingrube Auersmacher GmbH, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH, Stahlguss Saar GmbH and Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/63

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Flachglas Torgau and Others v Commission

(Case T-276/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Flachglas Torgau GmbH (Torgau, Germany); Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany); and Saint-Gobain Oberland AG (Bad Wurzach, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Flachglas Torgau GmbH, Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG and Saint-Gobain Oberland AG shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Flachglas Torgau GmbH, Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG and Saint-Gobain Oberland AG shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/64

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland and Others v Commission

(Case T-280/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Germany); Ineos Phenol GmbH (Gladbeck, Germany); and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH (Wilhelmshaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, L. Petersen, F.-A. Wesche, N. Wimmer and T. Woltering, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/65

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Fels-Werke v Commission

(Case T-281/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fels-Werke GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F.-A. Wesche, L. Petersen and T. Woltering lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Fels-Werke GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Fels-Werke GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/66

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Bayer MaterialScience v Commission

(Case T-282/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/80)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayer MaterialScience AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, L. Petersen, F.-A. Wesche, N. Wimmer and T. Woltering, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Bayer MaterialScience AG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Bayer MaterialScience AG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/66

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Advansa and Others v Commission

(Case T-283/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Advansa GmbH (Hamm, Germany); Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany); Aurubis AG (Hamburg, Germany); Cabb GmbH (Gersthofen, Germany); CBW Chemie GmbH Bitterfeld-Wolfen (Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany); CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG (Brunsbüttel, Germany); Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany); Dow Olefinverbund GmbH (Schkopau, Germany); Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH (Stade, Germany); Dralon GmbH (Dormagen, Germany); Ems-Chemie (Neumünster) GmbH & Co. KG (Neumünster, Germany); Hahl Filaments GmbH (Munderkingen, Germany); ISP Marl GmbH (Marl, Germany); Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen (Sulzbach, Germany); Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter (Sulzbach); Nabaltec AG (Schwandorf, Germany); Siltronic AG (Munich, Germany); Trevira GmbH (Bobingen, Germany); Wacker Chemie AG (Munich); and Westfalen Industriegase GmbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, L. Petersen, F.-A. Wesche, N. Wimmer and T. Woltering, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, Cabb GmbH, CBW Chemie GmbH Bitterfeld-Wolfen, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dow Olefinverbund GmbH, Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dralon GmbH, Ems-Chemie (Neumünster) GmbH & Co. KG, Hahl Filaments GmbH, ISP Marl GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG, Trevira GmbH, Wacker Chemie AG and Westfalen Industriegase GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, Cabb GmbH, CBW Chemie GmbH Bitterfeld-Wolfen, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dow Olefinverbund GmbH, Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dralon GmbH, Ems-Chemie (Neumünster) GmbH & Co. KG, Hahl Filaments GmbH, ISP Marl GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG, Trevira GmbH, Wacker Chemie AG and Westfalen Industriegase GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/67

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission

(Case T-318/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: M. Geipel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by H. Wollmann, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/68

---

Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB

(Case T-161/15)

(2015/C 294/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Dalmar investments Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands); Darlows Consultants Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas); Forestborne Ltd (Tortola); International Corporate Management Company SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Kraxis Investments Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); Magnamox Management Ltd (Nicosia); Megamatic Technologies Ltd (Nicosia); Windward Yachting Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Chupit Ltd (Nicosia); Coburg Investments (Overseas) Ltd (Nicosia); First Trade International Ltd (Tortola); Fitinvest Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus); Halman Consultants (Overseas) Ltd (Tortola); Limtan Investments Ltd (Lanarca, Cyprus); Minnesota Trading Ltd (Nicosia); Protoconsult Ltd (Nicosia); Transcoal Trading Ltd (Nicosia); and Veft Management Ltd (Nicosia) (represented by: R. Nowinski, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the European Union to make good the damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the adoption and application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the amounts as stated in the application or such amount as the Court finds to be due to the Applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union to make good the damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the adoption and application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the amounts as stated in the application or such amount as the Court finds to be due to the Applicants;

| — | order the European Union to legal costs incurred in the bringing of this Application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union to legal costs incurred in the bringing of this Application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they discriminated against Cyprus, and thereby, directly discriminated against depositors in Cyprus banks; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they discriminated against Cyprus, and thereby, directly discriminated against depositors in Cyprus banks;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they violated the depositors’ right to protection of property as guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they violated the depositors’ right to protection of property as guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 5(4) of the Treaty of the European Union in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they breached the principle of proportionality in drawing up the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality negotiated by the Commission and the ECB under the authority of the European Stability Mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 5(4) of the Treaty of the European Union in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they breached the principle of proportionality in drawing up the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality negotiated by the Commission and the ECB under the authority of the European Stability Mechanism.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/69

---

Action brought on 19 May 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council

(Case T-255/15)

(2015/C 294/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Stumpf and A. Haak, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), insofar those measures apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), insofar those measures apply to the applicant;

| — | order that the Council should pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Council should pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision infringes the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision infringes the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the entire reasoning of the defendant fails to meet the requirements for restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the entire reasoning of the defendant fails to meet the requirements for restrictive measures.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicant’s fundamental rights, including the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicant’s fundamental rights, including the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/70

---

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Kiselev v Council

(Case T-262/15)

(2015/C 294/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dmitry Konstantinovich Kiselev (Korolev, Russia) (represented by: T. Otty and B. Kennelly, Barristers, and J. Linneker, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine insofar as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine insofar as it applies to the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant satisfied the criterion for listing in Article 1(1) of the Decision (as amended) and Article 2(1) of the Regulation (as amended).






  — | The applicant puts forward that in order to ensure compliance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the criteria for listing in the Decision and Regulation must be interpreted consistently with the right to freedom of expression. According to the applicant, the criterion that a person ‘actively supports’ Russian government policies in relation to Ukraine must require the person to have a greater degree of influence over the relevant policies than merely expressing a view in a journalistic context. The applicant, so he claims, is a journalist and the director of a media company only and thus does not have the requisite influence or concrete impact on, and responsibility, for the situation in Ukraine. In fact, the applicant has never expressed support for ‘the deployment of Russian forces in Ukraine’ as the Council claims. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant satisfied the criterion for listing in Article 1(1) of the Decision (as amended) and Article 2(1) of the Regulation (as amended).

—

The applicant puts forward that in order to ensure compliance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the criteria for listing in the Decision and Regulation must be interpreted consistently with the right to freedom of expression. According to the applicant, the criterion that a person ‘actively supports’ Russian government policies in relation to Ukraine must require the person to have a greater degree of influence over the relevant policies than merely expressing a view in a journalistic context. The applicant, so he claims, is a journalist and the director of a media company only and thus does not have the requisite influence or concrete impact on, and responsibility, for the situation in Ukraine. In fact, the applicant has never expressed support for ‘the deployment of Russian forces in Ukraine’ as the Council claims.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the freedom of expression.






  — | According to the applicant, the restrictive measures punish the applicant for the political views that he has expressed as a journalist and a commentator. They also restrict his ability to exercise his right to freedom of expression as well as the operation of the news agency, Rossiya Segodnya, which he manages. According to the applicant, the mere fact that the Council objects to the content of some of the applicant’s reportage cannot justify restrictions. In addition, there is no evidence that he has incited violence or done anything to justify a restriction on his free speech rights. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the freedom of expression.

—

According to the applicant, the restrictive measures punish the applicant for the political views that he has expressed as a journalist and a commentator. They also restrict his ability to exercise his right to freedom of expression as well as the operation of the news agency, Rossiya Segodnya, which he manages. According to the applicant, the mere fact that the Council objects to the content of some of the applicant’s reportage cannot justify restrictions. In addition, there is no evidence that he has incited violence or done anything to justify a restriction on his free speech rights.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.






  — | The applicant puts forward that he was never given ‘serious and credible evidence’ or ‘concrete evidence and information’ in support of a case which would justify restrictive measures against him. The applicant, so he claims, was provided with the Council’s ‘evidence’ (and then in part) only after he had been relisted. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

—

The applicant puts forward that he was never given ‘serious and credible evidence’ or ‘concrete evidence and information’ in support of a case which would justify restrictive measures against him. The applicant, so he claims, was provided with the Council’s ‘evidence’ (and then in part) only after he had been relisted.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion.






  — | According to the applicant, the reason provide is excessively vague and fails to identify the actual and specific reason form imposing restrictive measures on the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion.

—

According to the applicant, the reason provide is excessively vague and fails to identify the actual and specific reason form imposing restrictive measures on the applicant.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging, alternatively, that the Council relied on an illegal measure (to the extent that the criterion for listing permits a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression).






  — | The applicant puts forward that if, contrary to the first plea, the criterion is to be interpreted so as to permit the listing of natural persons engaged in media activities simply by reason of their expression of political views which the Council regards as objectionable, the designation criterion would lack a proper legal base and/or be disproportionate to the objectives of the Decision and the Regulation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging, alternatively, that the Council relied on an illegal measure (to the extent that the criterion for listing permits a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression).

—

The applicant puts forward that if, contrary to the first plea, the criterion is to be interpreted so as to permit the listing of natural persons engaged in media activities simply by reason of their expression of political views which the Council regards as objectionable, the designation criterion would lack a proper legal base and/or be disproportionate to the objectives of the Decision and the Regulation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the EU/Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.






  — | The applicant puts forward that no attempt has been made to justify the breaches of Article 52 of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement involved in restricting the free movement of the funds of the applicant (among others) and no attempt has been made to engage with the Cooperation Council under Article 90. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the EU/Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

—

The applicant puts forward that no attempt has been made to justify the breaches of Article 52 of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement involved in restricting the free movement of the funds of the applicant (among others) and no attempt has been made to engage with the Cooperation Council under Article 90.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/71

---

Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Hmicho/Conseil

(Case T-275/15)

(2015/C 294/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samir Hmicho (Poole, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, and T. Eicke, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41), and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/784 of 19 May 2015, implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 124, p. 13), in so far as they relate to the Applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41), and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/784 of 19 May 2015, implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 124, p. 13), in so far as they relate to the Applicant;

| — | annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 124, p. 1), and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/780 of 19 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), in so far as they relate to the Applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 124, p. 1), and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/780 of 19 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), in so far as they relate to the Applicant;

| — | annul the decision of the Council, contained in its letter of 20 May 2015, reference SGS15/06024, confirming the designation of the Applicant and ‘altering the information concerning [the Applicant] as set out in Council Implementing Decision and Regulation’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council, contained in its letter of 20 May 2015, reference SGS15/06024, confirming the designation of the Applicant and ‘altering the information concerning [the Applicant] as set out in Council Implementing Decision and Regulation’;

| — | order the European Union to compensate the Applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union to compensate the Applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against him and/or a manifest error of assessment on the basis that there is no rational connection between him and the individuals sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union namely those who are benefiting from or supporting Syrian regime.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council Decisions 2013/255/CFSP, 2015/383 and 2015/784, the Council Regulations No 36/2012, No 2015/375 and no 2015/780, and/or the Decision dated 20 may 2015 amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights including the applicant’s right to human dignity, right to good administration, including the right of defence, the duty to give reasons and the presumption of innocence, right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, right to respect for his private and family life, freedom to conduct a business, and his right to property.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/72

---

Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by European External Action Service (EEAS) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14

(Case T-278/15 P)

(2015/C 294/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: KL (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14;

| — | uphold the claims it submitted at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the claims it submitted at first instance;

| — | order the defendant to the appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to the appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law, some of which concern the staff appraisal system and others of which concern the promotion system.

| — | The appraisal system






  1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof, breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and breach of the appellant’s rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The appraisal system

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof, breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and breach of the appellant’s rights of the defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the limits of judicial review. The appellant submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal has exceeded the limits of its power of judicial review several times, and appears to be seeking to oblige it to adopt a particular system of staff appraisal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the limits of judicial review. The appellant submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal has exceeded the limits of its power of judicial review several times, and appears to be seeking to oblige it to adopt a particular system of staff appraisal.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the Tribunal erred in law in finding that an appraisal system not based on marks lacks objectivity, and infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the Tribunal erred in law in finding that an appraisal system not based on marks lacks objectivity, and infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

| — | The promotion system






  4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and of the appellant’s rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The promotion system

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and of the appellant’s rights of the defence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the appellant had infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the appellant had infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/73

---

Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Vakakis v Commission

(Case T-292/15)

(2015/C 294/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vakakis International — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | hold the Commission liable under Article 340 TFUE to compensate all damages incurred by the applicant due to the unlawful conduct of the Commission during the public procurement procedure in question, including the:






  — | costs and expenses of the participation to the overall tender exercise; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

hold the Commission liable under Article 340 TFUE to compensate all damages incurred by the applicant due to the unlawful conduct of the Commission during the public procurement procedure in question, including the:

—

costs and expenses of the participation to the overall tender exercise;

| — | costs of the challenge of the legality of the tender exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

costs of the challenge of the legality of the tender exercise;

| — | loss of profit; |
| --- | --- |

—

loss of profit;

| — | loss of opportunities. |
| --- | --- |

—

loss of opportunities.

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of equal treatment, sound administration and legitimate expectations as codified by Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions (‘PRAG’) by failing to adequately supervise the tender procedure and promptly investigate and provide full and complete information on the investigation of the complaint lodged by Vakakis; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of equal treatment, sound administration and legitimate expectations as codified by Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions (‘PRAG’) by failing to adequately supervise the tender procedure and promptly investigate and provide full and complete information on the investigation of the complaint lodged by Vakakis;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has been damaged as a result of the Commission maladministration and the decision to award the contract to Agriconsulting. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has been damaged as a result of the Commission maladministration and the decision to award the contract to Agriconsulting.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damages as a result of the Commission maladministration and the breach of the Union general principles of equal treatment, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations as well as the infringement of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation and Section 2.3.6. of the PRAG. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damages as a result of the Commission maladministration and the breach of the Union general principles of equal treatment, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations as well as the infringement of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation and Section 2.3.6. of the PRAG.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/74

---

Action brought on 5 June 2015 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

(Case T-310/15)

(2015/C 294/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution, to the extent that it applies to copper compounds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution, to the extent that it applies to copper compounds;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs generated by this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs generated by this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution has been adopted on an illegal basis, as Regulation No 1107/2009, in particular its Articles 24 and Annex II, point 4, infringe EU law.






  — | The applicant puts forward that scientific evidence indicates that Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity (‘PBT’) criteria, in particular persistence, are not appropriate for copper. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution has been adopted on an illegal basis, as Regulation No 1107/2009, in particular its Articles 24 and Annex II, point 4, infringe EU law.

—

The applicant puts forward that scientific evidence indicates that Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity (‘PBT’) criteria, in particular persistence, are not appropriate for copper.

| — | Moreover, according to the applicant, the application of PBT criteria to inorganic substances is not consistent with other pieces of legislation that have been implemented in the field of regulated chemical substances. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, according to the applicant, the application of PBT criteria to inorganic substances is not consistent with other pieces of legislation that have been implemented in the field of regulated chemical substances.

| — | Finally, so the applicant claims, as far as candidates for substitution are concerned, the application of PBT criteria to copper compounds goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1107/2009 and Regulation No 1107/2009 misinterprets the precautionary principle. |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, so the applicant claims, as far as candidates for substitution are concerned, the application of PBT criteria to copper compounds goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1107/2009 and Regulation No 1107/2009 misinterprets the precautionary principle.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, subsidiarity, that by including copper compounds within the scope of Implementing Regulation 2015/408, the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, subsidiarity, that by including copper compounds within the scope of Implementing Regulation 2015/408, the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/75

---

Action brought on 11 June 2015 — Republic of Poland v Commission

(Case T-316/15)

(2015/C 294/90)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 31 March 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 2230) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural assistance under the Convergence objective in Poland; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 31 March 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 2230) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural assistance under the Convergence objective in Poland;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: incorrect interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (1), by finding that the investment in the creation of shared services centres, including the employment of specialists in the IT sector designing innovative services, did not constitute ‘productive investment which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that it could not be co-financed from resources of the European Regional Development Fund. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: incorrect interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (1), by finding that the investment in the creation of shared services centres, including the employment of specialists in the IT sector designing innovative services, did not constitute ‘productive investment which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that it could not be co-financed from resources of the European Regional Development Fund.

| 2. | Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from resources of the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that only investments with ‘radical innovative potential’ may be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project, by finding that it did not ensure compliance with priority axis 4 of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme in view of its lack of innovative character. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from resources of the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that only investments with ‘radical innovative potential’ may be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project, by finding that it did not ensure compliance with priority axis 4 of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme in view of its lack of innovative character.

| 3. | Third plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by finding a lack of justification for allowing a public contribution, and incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that the payment of dividends on the terms envisaged in the project precluded allowing co-financing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by finding a lack of justification for allowing a public contribution, and incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that the payment of dividends on the terms envisaged in the project precluded allowing co-financing.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project, changing the approach to the possibility of financing investments in the services sector in the course of that appraisal, and disregarding the explanations of the Polish authorities on the innovative character of the project. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project, changing the approach to the possibility of financing investments in the services sector in the course of that appraisal, and disregarding the explanations of the Polish authorities on the innovative character of the project.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/76

---

Action brought on 16 June 2015 — Ocean Capital Administration a.O. v Conseil

(Case T-332/15)

(2015/C 294/91)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ocean Capital Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), First Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), First Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Second Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Second Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Third Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Third Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Fourth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fourth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Fifth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fifth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Sixth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Sixth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Seventh Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Seventh Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Eighth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Eighth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Ninth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Ninth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Tenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Tenth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Eleventh Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Eleventh Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Twelfth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Twelfth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Thirteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fourteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fifteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Sixteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), IRISL Maritime Training Institute (Tehran, Iran), Kheibar Co. (Tehran), Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. (Kish Island, Iran) (represented by: P. Moser, QC, E. Metcalfe, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare inapplicable Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, on the basis of the objection of illegality; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare inapplicable Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, on the basis of the objection of illegality;

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants;

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, being a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFUE, seeking a declaration of inapplicability of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
  The applicants bring forward that the criteria adopted by the said Decision and Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, lack an adequate factual basis, in that the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (‘IRISL’) has been found by the General Court in its judgment in Case T-489/10, IRISL v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2013:453, not to have breached the restrictive measures imposed by the Security Council, third, breach the applicants’ right to an effective remedy and the principles of ne bis in idem and res judicata, fourth, discriminate against entities alleged to be owned or controlled by IRISL without justification or proportionality, fifth, violate the applicants’ right of defence, sixth, violate, without justification or proportion, other of the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to property, to conduct a business and to respect for their reputation, and, seventh, entail an abuse of power by the Council, in that it has simply re-applied the same restrictive measures to the applicants in circumvention of a binding judgment of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, being a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFUE, seeking a declaration of inapplicability of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

The applicants bring forward that the criteria adopted by the said Decision and Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, lack an adequate factual basis, in that the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (‘IRISL’) has been found by the General Court in its judgment in Case T-489/10, IRISL v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2013:453, not to have breached the restrictive measures imposed by the Security Council, third, breach the applicants’ right to an effective remedy and the principles of ne bis in idem and res judicata, fourth, discriminate against entities alleged to be owned or controlled by IRISL without justification or proportionality, fifth, violate the applicants’ right of defence, sixth, violate, without justification or proportion, other of the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to property, to conduct a business and to respect for their reputation, and, seventh, entail an abuse of power by the Council, in that it has simply re-applied the same restrictive measures to the applicants in circumvention of a binding judgment of the General Court.

| 2. | Second plea in law, being a plea for annulment under Article 263 TFUE, seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants.
  The applicants bring forward that the said Decision and Implementing Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, involve manifest errors of assessment, third, lack a sufficient factual basis, fourth, breach the applicant’s rights of defence and their entitlement to reasons, fifth, breach the applicant’s rights to an effective remedy, the principle of ne bis in idem and the general principle of legitimate expectation, and, sixth, violate without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular their rights to property and to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, being a plea for annulment under Article 263 TFUE, seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants.

The applicants bring forward that the said Decision and Implementing Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, involve manifest errors of assessment, third, lack a sufficient factual basis, fourth, breach the applicant’s rights of defence and their entitlement to reasons, fifth, breach the applicant’s rights to an effective remedy, the principle of ne bis in idem and the general principle of legitimate expectation, and, sixth, violate without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular their rights to property and to conduct a business.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/77

---

Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials)

(Case T-336/15)

(2015/C 294/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Windrush Aka LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and S. Britton, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerry Dammers (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘The Specials’ — Community trade mark No 3 725 082

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2015 in Case R 1412/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/78

---

Action brought on 29 June 2015 — Bach Flower Remedies v OHIM — Durapharma (RESCUE)

(Case T-337/15)

(2015/C 294/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Durapharma ApS (Stenstrup, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘RESCUE’ — Community trade mark registration No 6 473 755

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 2551/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/79

---

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — CG v OHIM — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER)

(Case T-349/15)

(2015/C 294/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CG verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Körber, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited (Nassau, Bahamas)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘P PRO PLAYER’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 89  764

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 2439/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/79

---

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Alpex Pharma v OHIM — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX)

(Case T-355/15)

(2015/C 294/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alpex Pharma SA (Mezzovico-Vira, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pleasanton, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ASTEX’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 05  281

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 593/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/80

---

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Puig France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

(Case T-358/15)

(2015/C 294/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puig France SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 1020/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision in part;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/81

---

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

(Case T-359/15)

(2015/C 294/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nina Ricci SARL (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 April 2015 in Case R 1021/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision in part;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/81

---

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream)

(Case T-361/15)

(2015/C 294/98)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Choice sp. z o.o. (Legnica, Poland) (represented by: T. Mielke, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Choice chocolate & ice cream’ — Application for registration No 1 2 6 44  423

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2015 in Case R 2221/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/82

---

Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Lacamanda Group v OHIM — Woolley (HENLEY)

(Case T-362/15)

(2015/C 294/99)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Lacamanda Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nigel Woolley (Braceborough, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HENLEY’ — Community trade mark No 4 7 43  563

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2015 in Case R 2255/2012-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/83

---

Action brought on 26 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-92/15)

(2015/C 294/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action seeking annulment of both the decision to reassess the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity rate and the decision partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and claim for compensation for the material and non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 6 October 2014 to the extent that it fixes the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity rate at only 68,5 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 6 October 2014 to the extent that it fixes the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity rate at only 68,5 %;

| — | annul the decision of 18 March 2015 partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 January 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 18 March 2015 partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 January 2015;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 1 10  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 1 10  000;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/83

---

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-94/15)

(2015/C 294/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s questioning the result of the EEAS Staff Committee elections.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 23 April 2015 validating the EEAS Staff Committee elections, the result of which was published on 17 March 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 23 April 2015 validating the EEAS Staff Committee elections, the result of which was published on 17 March 2015;

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

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/84

---

Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-95/15)

(2015/C 294/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the final decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the decision of 6 November 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to entering the service under the general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 6 November 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to entering the service under the general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/84

---

Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-96/15)

(2015/C 294/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the proposal to transfer the pension rights of the applicant into the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and the request that the defendant be ordered to pay a provisional advance of one euro in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 15.7.2011 to be unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 15.7.2011 to be unlawful;

| — | Annul the decision of 3 October 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the EU institutions, in accordance with the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 15.7.2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 3 October 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the EU institutions, in accordance with the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 15.7.2011;

| — | In the alternative, order the European Commission to make a provisional payment of one euro in respect of the loss suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, order the European Commission to make a provisional payment of one euro in respect of the loss suffered by the applicant;

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/85

---

Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-97/15)

(2015/C 294/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the final decision to transfer the pension rights of the applicant into the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations to be unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations to be unlawful;

| — | Annul the decision of 14 October 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service in accordance with the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 14 October 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service in accordance with the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/86

---

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-98/15)

(2015/C 294/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 18 July 2014, which confirmed the applicant in his post as Head of Unit, in so far as that decision does not provide for retroactive recognition of the status of Head of Unit and the retroactive award of the increase in basic salary for his post (the management allowance), and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 2 of the decision of 18 July 2014, insofar as it provides that the increase in basic salary relating to the appointment of the applicant as Head of Unit will take effect only after a period of nine months; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 2 of the decision of 18 July 2014, insofar as it provides that the increase in basic salary relating to the appointment of the applicant as Head of Unit will take effect only after a period of nine months;

| — | Annul the decision of 20 March 2015, received on 24 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 20 March 2015, received on 24 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 August 2014;

| — | Order compensation for the material and financial damage to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order compensation for the material and financial damage to the applicant;

| — | In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

---