# Official Journal C 45/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.045.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 45 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5715 February 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.045.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 45

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5715 February 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2014/C 045/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 39, 8.2.2014 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 045/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 39, 8.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 045/02 | Case C-111/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality) | 2 |
| 2014/C 045/03 | Case C-117/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 88(1) and (2) EC — Aid granted by the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union — Aid granted before accession — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality) | 2 |
| 2014/C 045/04 | Case C-118/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union — Aid granted before accession — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality) | 3 |
| 2014/C 045/05 | Case C-121/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality) | 3 |
| 2014/C 045/06 | Case C-446/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — European Commission v Edison SpA (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state reasons) | 4 |
| 2014/C 045/07 | Case C-447/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Calculation of the fine — Duration of the infringement — Limitation period — Mitigating circumstances) | 4 |
| 2014/C 045/08 | Case C-448/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — SNIA Spa, under special administration v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputation of liability in the field of competition — Economic continuity test — Infringement of the rights of defence — Duty to state reasons) | 5 |
| 2014/C 045/09 | Case C-449/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay Solexis SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Concepts of agreement and concerted practice — Concept of a single and continuous infringement — Calculation of the fine) | 5 |
| 2014/C 045/10 | Case C-455/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay SA v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Concepts of agreement and concerted practice — Leniency Notice — Obligation to state reasons — Reduction of the fine) | 6 |
| 2014/C 045/11 | Case C-576/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Treatment of urban waste water — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 260 TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum payment) | 6 |
| 2014/C 045/12 | Joined Cases C-618/11, C-637/11 and C-659/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública (Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 — Taxable amount for the VAT payable on commercial advertising screening services — Commercial advertising screening tax) | 7 |
| 2014/C 045/13 | Case C-13/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(9) — Export price — Article 3(5) and (6) — Determination of injury — Article 6(7) — Investigation — Article 8(4) — Offer of undertakings — Non-confidential version — Article 20(1) — Disclosure — Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part) | 7 |
| 2014/C 045/14 | Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Alessandra Venturini v ASL Varese and Others (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna v ASL Lodi and Others (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio v ASL Pavia and Others (C-161/12) (Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Public health — National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient) | 8 |
| 2014/C 045/15 | Case C-166/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Radek Časta v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 — Officials of the European Union — Pension rights in the national scheme — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme — Calculation method — Concept of capital value of pension rights) | 8 |
| 2014/C 045/16 | Case C-272/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Ireland, French Republic, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Appeal — State aid — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils — Court acting of its own motion — Plea adopted of its own motion by a court of the European Union — Relationship between tax harmonisation and monitoring of State aid — Respective powers of the Council and the Commission — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures) | 9 |
| 2014/C 045/17 | Case C-280/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to substantiate the measure) | 10 |
| 2014/C 045/18 | Case C-309/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal) — Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial IP (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 80/987/EEC — Directive 2002/74/EC — Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency — Guarantee institutions — Limitation on the payment obligation of the guarantee institution — Wage claims falling due more than six months before the commencement of legal proceedings seeking a declaration of the employer’s insolvency) | 10 |
| 2014/C 045/19 | Case C-319/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Minister Finansów v MDDP sp. z o.o. Akademia Biznesu, sp. komandytowa (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 132 to 134 and 168 — Exemptions — Educational services provided on a profit-making basis by bodies governed by private law — Right to deduction) | 11 |
| 2014/C 045/20 | Case C-394/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common European Asylum System — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application — Scope of judicial review) | 12 |
| 2014/C 045/21 | Case C-413/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León v Anuntis Segundamano España SL (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Action seeking an injunction brought by a regional consumer protection association — Jurisdiction of local courts — No remedy against a decision declining jurisdiction delivered at first instance — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness) | 12 |
| 2014/C 045/22 | Case C-450/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 7307 and 7321 — Stove pipe sets — Notions of parts of stoves and tube or pipe fittings) | 13 |
| 2014/C 045/23 | Case C-486/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — in the proceedings brought by X (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Conditions governing the exercise of a right of access — Levying of excessive fees) | 13 |
| 2014/C 045/24 | Case C-493/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Concept of a product protected by a basic patent in force — Criteria — Wording of the claims of the basic patent — Precision and specificity — Functional definition of an active ingredient — Structural definition of an active ingredient — European Patent Convention) | 14 |
| 2014/C 045/25 | Case C-508/12: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European enforcement order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification as an enforcement order — Situation in which the judgment was given in the Member State of the creditor in a dispute between two persons not engaged in commercial or professional activities) | 14 |
| 2014/C 045/26 | Case C-514/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Land Salzburg (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — National legislation providing for account to be taken only of a proportion of the periods of service completed with employers other than Land Salzburg — Restriction of freedom of movement for workers — Justifications — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Objective of rewarding loyalty — Administrative simplification — Transparency) | 15 |
| 2014/C 045/27 | Case C-523/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Dirextra Alta Formazione srl v Regione Puglia (Request for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate specialist programmes of study — Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of grants subject to conditions targeting providers of post-graduate programmes of study — Condition requiring 10 years’ continuous experience) | 15 |
| 2014/C 045/28 | Case C-561/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium (Public procurement — Negotiated procedure with prior publication of a contract notice — Whether possible for the contracting authority to negotiate on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications relating to the contract) | 16 |
| 2014/C 045/29 | Case C-576/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Ivan Jurašinović v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Access to the documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access — Article 4(1)(a), first and third indents — Public security — International relations) | 16 |
| 2014/C 045/30 | Case C-558/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2013 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Marián Vasko | 17 |
| 2014/C 045/31 | Case C-559/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2013 — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald | 17 |
| 2014/C 045/32 | Case C-561/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hoštická a.s. and Others v Ministerstvo zemědělství | 17 |
| 2014/C 045/33 | Case C-597/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Total SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-548/08 Total SA v European Commission | 18 |
| 2014/C 045/34 | Case C-605/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Anbouba v Council | 19 |
| 2014/C 045/35 | Case C-618/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-396/10 Zucchetti Rubinetteria v European Commission | 19 |
| 2014/C 045/36 | Case C-619/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Mamoli Robinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-376/10 Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission | 20 |
| 2014/C 045/37 | Case C-630/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Anbouba v Council | 21 |
| 2014/C 045/38 | Case C-634/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing, against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-566/08 Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission | 22 |
| 2014/C 045/39 | Case C-639/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 23 |
| 2014/C 045/40 | Case C-642/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch — Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch v Commission | 23 |
| 2014/C 045/41 | Case C-644/13 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission | 24 |
| 2014/C 045/42 | Case C-648/13: Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 25 |
| 2014/C 045/43 | Case C-660/13: Action brought on 13 December 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission | 26 |
| 2014/C 045/44 | Case C-674/13: Action brought on 17 December 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany | 26 |
| 2014/C 045/45 | Case C-682/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2013 by Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission | 27 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 045/46 | Case T-388/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország (CORDIO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CORDIO — Earlier Community word mark CORDIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 29 |
| 2014/C 045/47 | Case T-38/09: Order of the General Court of 9 December 2013 — El Corte Inglés v Commission (Customs Union — Import of textiles declared to have originated in Jamaica — Recovery a posteriori of import duties — Application for remission of duties — Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Commission decision rejecting that application — Annulment by the national court of the decision of the national authorities to enter in the accounts duties a posteriori — No need to adjudicate) | 29 |
| 2014/C 045/48 | Case T-150/11: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Government of Aragón and Others v Council (Action for annulment — State aid — Decision concerning aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility) | 30 |
| 2014/C 045/49 | Case T-634/11 P: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Appointment to post of Director of Directorate E Justice in the Commission’s Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security — Rejection of the appellant’s candidature — Appointment of another candidate — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 30 |
| 2014/C 045/50 | Case T-23/12: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — MAF v EIOPA (Action for annulment — Languages — Publication by the EIOPA of consultative documents on its internet site exclusively in English — Non-actionable measures — Inadmissibility) | 31 |
| 2014/C 045/51 | Case T-38/12: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2013 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 31 |
| 2014/C 045/52 | Case T-179/12: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Wirtgen v OHIM (Shape of a chisel holder) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 31 |
| 2014/C 045/53 | Case T-492/12: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — von Storch and Others v ECB (Actions for annulment — Decisions adopted by the ECB — Technical characteristics relating to Eurosystem Outright Monetary Transactions — Measures seeking to maintain the availability of collateral — Temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral — Not directly affected — Inadmissibility) | 32 |
| 2014/C 045/54 | Case T-32/13 P: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Nomination to post of Director of Directorate A Civil Justice in the Commission’s Directorate General Justice — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Nomination of another candidate — Misuse of powers — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 32 |
| 2014/C 045/55 | Case T-203/13 P: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 33 |
| 2014/C 045/56 | Case T-204/13 P: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 33 |
| 2014/C 045/57 | Case T-205/15 P: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 33 |
| 2014/C 045/58 | Case T-242/13: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 34 |
| 2014/C 045/59 | Case T-505/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2014 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission (Interim measures — Arrangements for the association of overseas countries and territories — 10th European Development Fund — Implementing rules — Netherlands Antilles — Application for suspension of implementation — Application for interim measures — Whether admissible) | 34 |
| 2014/C 045/60 | Case T-578/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission | 35 |
| 2014/C 045/61 | Case T-580/13: Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Real Express v OHIM — MIP Metro (real) | 35 |
| 2014/C 045/62 | Case T-607/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Granette & Starorežná Distilleries v OHIM — Bacardi (42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.) | 36 |
| 2014/C 045/63 | Case T-618/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE) | 36 |
| 2014/C 045/64 | Case T-624/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling) | 37 |
| 2014/C 045/65 | Case T-625/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie) | 37 |
| 2014/C 045/66 | Case T-626/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (DARJEELING collection de lingerie) | 38 |
| 2014/C 045/67 | Case T-627/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling) | 38 |
| 2014/C 045/68 | Case T-639/13: Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Watch TV v Council | 39 |
| 2014/C 045/69 | Case T-643/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Rogesa v Commission | 39 |
| 2014/C 045/70 | Case T-659/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission | 40 |
| 2014/C 045/71 | Case T-660/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v European Commission | 41 |
| 2014/C 045/72 | Case T-675/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — K Chimica v ECHA | 41 |
| 2014/C 045/73 | Case T-676/13: Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Italian international film v EACEA | 42 |
| 2014/C 045/74 | Case T-692/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA | 43 |
| 2014/C 045/75 | Case T-574/11: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard) | 44 |
| 2014/C 045/76 | Case T-214/12: Order of the General Court of 2 December 2013 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio) | 44 |
| 2014/C 045/77 | Case T-217/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!) | 44 |
| 2014/C 045/78 | Case T-508/12: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Classeurs) | 44 |
| 2014/C 045/79 | Case T-511/12: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Sixty International (Refrigue for cold) | 44 |
| 2014/C 045/80 | Case T-153/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission | 44 |
| 2014/C 045/81 | Case T-154/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission | 45 |
| 2014/C 045/82 | Case T-357/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — European Space Imaging v Commission | 45 |
| 2014/C 045/83 | Case T-523/13: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL) | 45 |
| 2014/C 045/84 | Case T-524/13: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL) | 45 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2014/C 045/85 | Case F-100/13: Action brought on 4 October 2013 — ZZ a. o. v EEAS | 46 |
| 2014/C 045/86 | Case F-106/13: Action brought on 25 October 2013 — ZZ v FRA | 46 |
| 2014/C 045/87 | Case F-116/13: Action brought on 30 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission | 46 |
| 2014/C 045/88 | Case F-120/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — ZZ v ERA | 47 |
| 2014/C 045/89 | Case F-126/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission | 47 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 045/02

Case C-111/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

2

2014/C 045/03

Case C-117/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 88(1) and (2) EC — Aid granted by the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union — Aid granted before accession — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

2

2014/C 045/04

Case C-118/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union — Aid granted before accession — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

3

2014/C 045/05

Case C-121/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

3

2014/C 045/06

Case C-446/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — European Commission v Edison SpA (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state reasons)

4

2014/C 045/07

Case C-447/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Calculation of the fine — Duration of the infringement — Limitation period — Mitigating circumstances)

4

2014/C 045/08

Case C-448/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — SNIA Spa, under special administration v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputation of liability in the field of competition — Economic continuity test — Infringement of the rights of defence — Duty to state reasons)

5

2014/C 045/09

Case C-449/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay Solexis SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Concepts of agreement and concerted practice — Concept of a single and continuous infringement — Calculation of the fine)

5

2014/C 045/10

Case C-455/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay SA v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Concepts of agreement and concerted practice — Leniency Notice — Obligation to state reasons — Reduction of the fine)

6

2014/C 045/11

Case C-576/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Treatment of urban waste water — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 260 TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum payment)

6

2014/C 045/12

Joined Cases C-618/11, C-637/11 and C-659/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública (Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 — Taxable amount for the VAT payable on commercial advertising screening services — Commercial advertising screening tax)

7

2014/C 045/13

Case C-13/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(9) — Export price — Article 3(5) and (6) — Determination of injury — Article 6(7) — Investigation — Article 8(4) — Offer of undertakings — Non-confidential version — Article 20(1) — Disclosure — Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part)

7

2014/C 045/14

Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Alessandra Venturini v ASL Varese and Others (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna v ASL Lodi and Others (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio v ASL Pavia and Others (C-161/12) (Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Public health — National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient)

8

2014/C 045/15

Case C-166/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Radek Časta v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 — Officials of the European Union — Pension rights in the national scheme — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme — Calculation method — Concept of capital value of pension rights)

8

2014/C 045/16

Case C-272/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Ireland, French Republic, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Appeal — State aid — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils — Court acting of its own motion — Plea adopted of its own motion by a court of the European Union — Relationship between tax harmonisation and monitoring of State aid — Respective powers of the Council and the Commission — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures)

9

2014/C 045/17

Case C-280/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to substantiate the measure)

10

2014/C 045/18

Case C-309/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal) — Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial IP (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 80/987/EEC — Directive 2002/74/EC — Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency — Guarantee institutions — Limitation on the payment obligation of the guarantee institution — Wage claims falling due more than six months before the commencement of legal proceedings seeking a declaration of the employer’s insolvency)

10

2014/C 045/19

Case C-319/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Minister Finansów v MDDP sp. z o.o. Akademia Biznesu, sp. komandytowa (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 132 to 134 and 168 — Exemptions — Educational services provided on a profit-making basis by bodies governed by private law — Right to deduction)

11

2014/C 045/20

Case C-394/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common European Asylum System — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application — Scope of judicial review)

12

2014/C 045/21

Case C-413/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León v Anuntis Segundamano España SL (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Action seeking an injunction brought by a regional consumer protection association — Jurisdiction of local courts — No remedy against a decision declining jurisdiction delivered at first instance — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

12

2014/C 045/22

Case C-450/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 7307 and 7321 — Stove pipe sets — Notions of parts of stoves and tube or pipe fittings)

13

2014/C 045/23

Case C-486/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — in the proceedings brought by X (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Conditions governing the exercise of a right of access — Levying of excessive fees)

13

2014/C 045/24

Case C-493/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Concept of a product protected by a basic patent in force — Criteria — Wording of the claims of the basic patent — Precision and specificity — Functional definition of an active ingredient — Structural definition of an active ingredient — European Patent Convention)

14

2014/C 045/25

Case C-508/12: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European enforcement order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification as an enforcement order — Situation in which the judgment was given in the Member State of the creditor in a dispute between two persons not engaged in commercial or professional activities)

14

2014/C 045/26

Case C-514/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Land Salzburg (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — National legislation providing for account to be taken only of a proportion of the periods of service completed with employers other than Land Salzburg — Restriction of freedom of movement for workers — Justifications — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Objective of rewarding loyalty — Administrative simplification — Transparency)

15

2014/C 045/27

Case C-523/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Dirextra Alta Formazione srl v Regione Puglia (Request for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate specialist programmes of study — Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of grants subject to conditions targeting providers of post-graduate programmes of study — Condition requiring 10 years’ continuous experience)

15

2014/C 045/28

Case C-561/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium (Public procurement — Negotiated procedure with prior publication of a contract notice — Whether possible for the contracting authority to negotiate on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications relating to the contract)

16

2014/C 045/29

Case C-576/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Ivan Jurašinović v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Access to the documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access — Article 4(1)(a), first and third indents — Public security — International relations)

16

2014/C 045/30

Case C-558/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2013 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Marián Vasko

17

2014/C 045/31

Case C-559/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2013 — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald

17

2014/C 045/32

Case C-561/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hoštická a.s. and Others v Ministerstvo zemědělství

17

2014/C 045/33

Case C-597/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Total SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-548/08 Total SA v European Commission

18

2014/C 045/34

Case C-605/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Anbouba v Council

19

2014/C 045/35

Case C-618/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-396/10 Zucchetti Rubinetteria v European Commission

19

2014/C 045/36

Case C-619/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Mamoli Robinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-376/10 Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission

20

2014/C 045/37

Case C-630/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Anbouba v Council

21

2014/C 045/38

Case C-634/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing, against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-566/08 Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission

22

2014/C 045/39

Case C-639/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

23

2014/C 045/40

Case C-642/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch — Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch v Commission

23

2014/C 045/41

Case C-644/13 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission

24

2014/C 045/42

Case C-648/13: Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

25

2014/C 045/43

Case C-660/13: Action brought on 13 December 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

26

2014/C 045/44

Case C-674/13: Action brought on 17 December 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

26

2014/C 045/45

Case C-682/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2013 by Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission

27

General Court

2014/C 045/46

Case T-388/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország (CORDIO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CORDIO — Earlier Community word mark CORDIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

29

2014/C 045/47

Case T-38/09: Order of the General Court of 9 December 2013 — El Corte Inglés v Commission (Customs Union — Import of textiles declared to have originated in Jamaica — Recovery a posteriori of import duties — Application for remission of duties — Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Commission decision rejecting that application — Annulment by the national court of the decision of the national authorities to enter in the accounts duties a posteriori — No need to adjudicate)

29

2014/C 045/48

Case T-150/11: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Government of Aragón and Others v Council (Action for annulment — State aid — Decision concerning aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

30

2014/C 045/49

Case T-634/11 P: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Appointment to post of Director of Directorate E Justice in the Commission’s Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security — Rejection of the appellant’s candidature — Appointment of another candidate — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

30

2014/C 045/50

Case T-23/12: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — MAF v EIOPA (Action for annulment — Languages — Publication by the EIOPA of consultative documents on its internet site exclusively in English — Non-actionable measures — Inadmissibility)

31

2014/C 045/51

Case T-38/12: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2013 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

31

2014/C 045/52

Case T-179/12: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Wirtgen v OHIM (Shape of a chisel holder) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

31

2014/C 045/53

Case T-492/12: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — von Storch and Others v ECB (Actions for annulment — Decisions adopted by the ECB — Technical characteristics relating to Eurosystem Outright Monetary Transactions — Measures seeking to maintain the availability of collateral — Temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral — Not directly affected — Inadmissibility)

32

2014/C 045/54

Case T-32/13 P: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Nomination to post of Director of Directorate A Civil Justice in the Commission’s Directorate General Justice — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Nomination of another candidate — Misuse of powers — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

32

2014/C 045/55

Case T-203/13 P: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

33

2014/C 045/56

Case T-204/13 P: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

33

2014/C 045/57

Case T-205/15 P: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

33

2014/C 045/58

Case T-242/13: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

34

2014/C 045/59

Case T-505/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2014 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission (Interim measures — Arrangements for the association of overseas countries and territories — 10th European Development Fund — Implementing rules — Netherlands Antilles — Application for suspension of implementation — Application for interim measures — Whether admissible)

34

2014/C 045/60

Case T-578/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission

35

2014/C 045/61

Case T-580/13: Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Real Express v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

35

2014/C 045/62

Case T-607/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Granette & Starorežná Distilleries v OHIM — Bacardi (42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.)

36

2014/C 045/63

Case T-618/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE)

36

2014/C 045/64

Case T-624/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

37

2014/C 045/65

Case T-625/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie)

37

2014/C 045/66

Case T-626/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (DARJEELING collection de lingerie)

38

2014/C 045/67

Case T-627/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

38

2014/C 045/68

Case T-639/13: Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Watch TV v Council

39

2014/C 045/69

Case T-643/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Rogesa v Commission

39

2014/C 045/70

Case T-659/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission

40

2014/C 045/71

Case T-660/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v European Commission

41

2014/C 045/72

Case T-675/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — K Chimica v ECHA

41

2014/C 045/73

Case T-676/13: Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Italian international film v EACEA

42

2014/C 045/74

Case T-692/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA

43

2014/C 045/75

Case T-574/11: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)

44

2014/C 045/76

Case T-214/12: Order of the General Court of 2 December 2013 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)

44

2014/C 045/77

Case T-217/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)

44

2014/C 045/78

Case T-508/12: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Classeurs)

44

2014/C 045/79

Case T-511/12: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)

44

2014/C 045/80

Case T-153/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission

44

2014/C 045/81

Case T-154/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission

45

2014/C 045/82

Case T-357/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — European Space Imaging v Commission

45

2014/C 045/83

Case T-523/13: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

45

2014/C 045/84

Case T-524/13: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

45

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2014/C 045/85

Case F-100/13: Action brought on 4 October 2013 — ZZ a. o. v EEAS

46

2014/C 045/86

Case F-106/13: Action brought on 25 October 2013 — ZZ v FRA

46

2014/C 045/87

Case F-116/13: Action brought on 30 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission

46

2014/C 045/88

Case F-120/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — ZZ v ERA

47

2014/C 045/89

Case F-126/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission

47

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/1

---

2014/C 45/01

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

OJ C 39, 8.2.2014

Past publications

OJ C 31, 1.2.2014

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014

OJ C 15, 18.1.2014

OJ C 9, 11.1.2014

OJ C 377, 21.12.2013

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-111/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)

2014/C 45/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, B. Stromsky and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/983/EU of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of State-owned agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 338, p. 93) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

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;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-117/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 88(1) and (2) EC - Aid granted by the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union - Aid granted before accession - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)

2014/C 45/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2010/10/EC of 20 November 2009 on the granting of a State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2010 L 4, p. 89) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment

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.

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-118/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union - Aid granted before accession - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)

2014/C 45/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/991/EC of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 339, p. 34) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

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;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-121/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)

2014/C 45/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/1017/EU of 22 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 348, p. 55) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

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;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — European Commission v Edison SpA

(Case C-446/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons)

2014/C 45/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Edison SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, R. Casati, M. Beretta, P. Merlino, F. Cannizzaro and E. Bruti Liberati, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-196/06 Edison v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns Edison SpA — Rules on the imputability of the anti-competitive practices of a subsidiary to its parent company — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration v European Commission

(Case C-447/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Calculation of the fine - Duration of the infringement - Limitation period - Mitigating circumstances)

2014/C 45/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration (represented by: C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: Di Bucci, L Malferrari, R. Striani and B. Gencarelli, agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-192/06 Caffaro v Commission by which the Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as in it the Commission imposes a joint and several fine on the applicant and SNIA SpA, or a reduction of the fine — Fines — Equal treatment — Limitation period — Obligation to state reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — SNIA Spa, under special administration v European Commission

(Case C-448/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputation of liability in the field of competition - Economic continuity test - Infringement of the rights of defence - Duty to state reasons)

2014/C 45/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: SNIA Spa, under special administration (represented by: A. Santa Maria, C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Malferrari and B. Gencarelli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-194/06 SNIA v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), to the extent that the Commission imposed a fine jointly and severally on Caffaro Srl and on SNIA SpA — Rules relating to the imputability of anti-competitive practices in the case of a merger — Infringement of the rights of defence and of the duty to state reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders SNIA SpA, under special administration, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SNIA SpA, under special administration, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay Solexis SpA v European Commission

(Case C-449/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Concept of a ‘single and continuous infringement’ - Calculation of the fine)

2014/C 45/09

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Solvay Solexis SpA (represented by: T. Salonico, G.L. Zampa and G. Barone, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L Malferrari and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-195/06 Solvay Solexis SpA v Commission by which the Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as it concerns Solvay Solexis — Duration of the infringement — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Solvay Solexis SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Solvay Solexis SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay SA v European Commission

(Case C-455/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Leniency Notice - Obligation to state reasons - Reduction of the fine)

2014/C 45/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, and M. O’Regan, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, A. Biolan and J. Bourke, Agents, and by M. Gray, BL)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-186/06 Solvay v European Commission by which the General Court upheld in part an action for (i) partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/903/EC of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 54), concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting in exchanges of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices and on the reduction of production capacities in the EEA, and in the monitoring of the implementation of those agreements in the European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate, and (ii) annulment or a reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

| 2. | Orders Solvay SA to pay the costs of the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Solvay SA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-576/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-implementation - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum payment)

2014/C 45/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: P. Frantzen and C. Schiltz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Behzadi-Spencer, C. Murrell and S. Ford, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete compliance with a judgment of the Court of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg on the failure to transpose the provisions of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Incorrect application of Article 5(4) of that directive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 2 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 2 000 000.

| 3. | Declares that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the date of delivery of this judgment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg shall be ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 2 800 for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg, from the date of delivery of this judgment until the date on which the judgment in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg has been complied with in full. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the date of delivery of this judgment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg shall be ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 2 800 for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg, from the date of delivery of this judgment until the date on which the judgment in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg has been complied with in full.

| 4. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

| 5. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.02.2012

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública

(Joined Cases C-618/11, C-637/11 and C-659/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 - Taxable amount for the VAT payable on commercial advertising screening services - Commercial advertising screening tax)

2014/C 45/12

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Intervener: Ministério Público

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 11(A)(1)(a) and (3)(c) of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 73 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier for certain supplies — Tax payable on the broadcasting of commercial advertising.

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) of 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 and Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, a tax such as the ‘screening tax’ provided for under Portuguese legislation for the benefit of the cinematographic and audiovisual arts must be included in the taxable amount for the purposes of the VAT payable on services consisting in the screening of commercial advertising.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-13/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(9) - Export price - Article 3(5) and (6) - Determination of injury - Article 6(7) - Investigation - Article 8(4) - Offer of undertakings - Non-confidential version - Article 20(1) - Disclosure - Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part)

2014/C 45/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocaat, and N. Mizulin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-190/08 CHEMK and KF v Council, by which the General Court dismissed an application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6) and, in the alternative, annulment of the Commission decision of 28 February 2008 refusing the then applicants’ request for suspension of the anti-dumping measures introduced by the contested regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to pay the costs of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Alessandra Venturini v ASL Varese and Others (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna v ASL Lodi and Others (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio v ASL Pavia and Others (C-161/12)

(Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Public health - National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient)

2014/C 45/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alessandra Venturini (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio (C-161/12)

Defendants: ASL Varese, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Saronno, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (C-159/12), ASL Lodi, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Sant’Angelo Lodigiano, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (C-160/12), ASL Pavia, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Bereguardo, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)(C-161/12)

Intervener: Federfarma — Federazione Nazionale Unitaria dei Titolari di Farmacia Italiani (C-159/12 to C-161/12),

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 18 and 56 TFEU and of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow a pharmacist, who is qualified and registered with the professional body but does not own a pharmacy in the grid, also to offer for retail sale, in the para-pharmacy owned by that pharmacist, prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne not by the national health service but wholly by the purchaser.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Radek Časta v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení

(Case C-166/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 - Officials of the European Union - Pension rights in the national scheme - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme - Calculation method - Concept of ‘capital value of pension rights’)

2014/C 45/15

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Radek Časta

Defendant: Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Krajský soud v Praze — Interpretation of Article 4(3) of the EU Treaty and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 30), as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1) — Transfer of pension rights acquired before the official enters the service of the European Union — Concept of ‘capital value of pension rights’ — National legislation laying down a method of calculation of the pension rights offered for transfer resulting in a value much lower than the sum of the contributions paid to the national pension scheme.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | On a proper construction of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, a Member State may determine the amount of the capital value of pension rights by means of the actuarial equivalent, the flat-rate redemption value or by means of other methods, in so far as the amount to be transferred actually represents the pension rights acquired by virtue of the previous activities of the official concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper construction of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, a Member State may determine the amount of the capital value of pension rights by means of the actuarial equivalent, the flat-rate redemption value or by means of other methods, in so far as the amount to be transferred actually represents the pension rights acquired by virtue of the previous activities of the official concerned.

| 2. | Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as not precluding application of the method for calculating the capital value of pension rights acquired earlier, such as that defined in Czech law, even where that method results in the amount of capital to be transferred into the European Union pension scheme being set at a level of not even half the amount of the contributions paid by the official and his former employer into the national pension scheme. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as not precluding application of the method for calculating the capital value of pension rights acquired earlier, such as that defined in Czech law, even where that method results in the amount of capital to be transferred into the European Union pension scheme being set at a level of not even half the amount of the contributions paid by the official and his former employer into the national pension scheme.

| 3. | Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of calculating the amount of the capital value of pension rights acquired under the national pension scheme and intended to be transferred into the European Union pension scheme, account is not to be taken of the period during which the official had already participated in that scheme. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of calculating the amount of the capital value of pension rights acquired under the national pension scheme and intended to be transferred into the European Union pension scheme, account is not to be taken of the period during which the official had already participated in that scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Ireland, French Republic, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd

(Case C-272/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils - Court acting of its own motion - Plea adopted of its own motion by a court of the European Union - Relationship between tax harmonisation and monitoring of State aid - Respective powers of the Council and the Commission - Principle of legal certainty - Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures)

2014/C 45/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte, D. Grespan, N. Khan and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, Agent, and P. McGarry SC), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and, initially, J. Gstalter, and, subsequently N. Rouam, Agents), Italian Republic, (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato), Eurallumina SpA, (represented by: R. Denton, A. Stratakis, L. Martin Alegi and L. Philippou, Solicitors), Aughinish Alumina Ltd, (represented by: C. Waterson, C. Little and J. Handoll, Solicitors)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) — Errors of law — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Procedural irregularities adversely affecting the interests of the Commission — Court acting of its own motion — Infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Concept of State aid — Whether contested exemptions attributable to Member States or the Council — Relationship between tax harmonisation and State aid — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of legality — Principle of good administration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Grand Chamber):

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission;

| 2. | Refers Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission

(Case C-280/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to substantiate the measure)

2014/C 45/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Kronshagen and C. Hirtzberger, avocats), European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent)

Interveners in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko and A. Robinson, Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister), French Republic (represented by: E. Ranaivoson and D. Colas, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of 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), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) — Specific restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of law — Error of assessment — Burden of proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal) — Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial IP

(Case C-309/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 80/987/EEC - Directive 2002/74/EC - Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency - Guarantee institutions - Limitation on the payment obligation of the guarantee institution - Wage claims falling due more than six months before the commencement of legal proceedings seeking a declaration of the employer’s insolvency)

2014/C 45/18

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo, Ezequiel Martins Dias, Gabriel Inácio da Silva Fontes, Marcelino Jorge dos Santos Simões, Manuel Dourado Eusébio, Alberto Martins Mineiro, Armindo Gomes de Faria, José Fontes Cambas, Alberto Martins do Alto, José Manuel Silva Correia, Marilde Marisa Moreira Marques Moita, José Rodrigues Salgado Almeida, Carlos Manuel Sousa Oliveira, Manuel da Costa Moreira, Paulo da Costa Moreira, José Manuel Serra da Fonseca, Ademar Daniel Lourenço Dias, Ana Mafalda Azevedo Martins Ferreira

Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Salarial IP

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo do Norte — Interpretation of Arts. 4 and 10 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23) — Limitation of the liability of guarantee institutions — National legislation limiting the obligation to pay claims to those falling due during the six-month period preceding the initiation of proceedings for a declaration of the employer’s insolvency — Application of that limitation in cases in which proceedings have been brought before the labour courts to determine the value of claims that have not been paid during the six months following the date on which they fell due.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in its original version, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which does not guarantee wage claims falling due more than six months before the commencement of an action seeking a declaration that the employer is insolvent, even where the workers initiated, prior to the start of that period, legal proceedings against their employer with a view to obtaining a determination of the amount of those claims and an enforcement order to recover those sums.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Minister Finansów v MDDP sp. z o.o. Akademia Biznesu, sp. komandytowa

(Case C-319/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 132 to 134 and 168 - Exemptions - Educational services provided on a profit-making basis by bodies governed by private law - Right to deduction)

2014/C 45/19

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: MDDP sp. z o.o. Akademia Biznesu, sp. komandytowa,

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of point (i) of Article 132(1), Article 133, Article 134 and Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing, contrary to the directive, for exemption from VAT for educational services provided for commercial purposes by bodies governed by private law — Refusal to allow a body which has received such an exemption to deduct input VAT.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point (i) of Article 132(1)(i), points (a) to (d) of 133(1) and Article 134 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude educational services provided for commercial purposes by bodies not governed by public law from being exempt from value added tax. However, point (i) of Article 132(1) of that directive precludes a general exemption of all supplies of educational services, without consideration of the objects pursued by non-public organisations providing those services. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point (i) of Article 132(1)(i), points (a) to (d) of 133(1) and Article 134 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude educational services provided for commercial purposes by bodies not governed by public law from being exempt from value added tax. However, point (i) of Article 132(1) of that directive precludes a general exemption of all supplies of educational services, without consideration of the objects pursued by non-public organisations providing those services.

| 2. | A taxable person may not claim, in accordance with Article 168 of Directive 2006/112 or the national provision transposing it, a right to deduct input value added tax where, as a result of an exemption provided for by national law in infringement of point (i) of Article 132(1) of that directive, the input supply of its educational services are not subject to value added tax.
  That taxable person may, however, rely on the incompatibility of that exemption with point (i) of Article 132(1) of Directive 2006/112 so that that exemption is not applied to it where, even taking account of the discretion granted to Member States, that taxable person could not objectively be regarded as an organisation having objects similar to those of an educational body governed by public law, within the meaning of that provision, which is to be determined by the national court.
  In the latter case, the educational services supplied by that taxable person will be subject to value added tax and that person could then benefit from the right to deduct input value added tax. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A taxable person may not claim, in accordance with Article 168 of Directive 2006/112 or the national provision transposing it, a right to deduct input value added tax where, as a result of an exemption provided for by national law in infringement of point (i) of Article 132(1) of that directive, the input supply of its educational services are not subject to value added tax.

That taxable person may, however, rely on the incompatibility of that exemption with point (i) of Article 132(1) of Directive 2006/112 so that that exemption is not applied to it where, even taking account of the discretion granted to Member States, that taxable person could not objectively be regarded as an organisation having objects similar to those of an educational body governed by public law, within the meaning of that provision, which is to be determined by the national court.

In the latter case, the educational services supplied by that taxable person will be subject to value added tax and that person could then benefit from the right to deduct input value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt

(Case C-394/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Common European Asylum System - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application - Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application - Scope of judicial review)

2014/C 45/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Asylgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Shamso Abdullahi

Defendant: Bundesasylamt

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Asylgerichtshof — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 10, 16, 18 and 19 thereof, and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3) — Somali national having crossed the frontier of the European Union in Greece from where she then went, via third countries and Hungary, to Austria, where she submitted, less than 12 months after her first entry on European Union territory, an application for asylum — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining that asylum application

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in Article 10(1) of that regulation — namely, as the Member State of the first entry of the applicant for asylum into the European Union — the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León v Anuntis Segundamano España SL

(Case C-413/12) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Action seeking an injunction brought by a regional consumer protection association - Jurisdiction of local courts - No remedy against a decision declining jurisdiction delivered at first instance - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

2014/C 45/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León

Defendant: Anuntis Segundamano España SL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain — Interpretation of Articles 4, 12, 114 and 169 TFEU, Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) and of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms — Preventive action brought in the collective interest by a consumer protection organisation seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair terms — National rules of civil procedure conferring jurisdiction on the court of the place where the defendant has its address — National legislation excluding any appeal against an order declining jurisdiction

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national procedural rules under which actions for an injunction brought by consumer protection associations must be brought before the courts where the defendant is established or has its address and whereby no appeal lies against a decision declining territorial jurisdiction handed down by a court of first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-450/12) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 7307 and 7321 - Stove pipe sets - Notions of ‘parts’ of stoves and ‘tube or pipe fittings’)

2014/C 45/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Annex I to 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), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1) — Interpretation of headings 7307 and 7321 — Classification of stove pipe sets.

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a stove pipe set, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which comprises a right-angled tubular elbow component in steel with an external diameter of 154 mm and external dimensions of 495 mm x 595 mm, which is covered in heat-resistant paint and has a closing flap to allow internal cleaning, a chimney connection and an appropriate surround, must be classified under Combined Nomenclature heading 7321 as a part, in steel, of a stove.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — in the proceedings brought by X

(Case C-486/12) (1)

(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Conditions governing the exercise of a right of access - Levying of excessive fees)

2014/C 45/23

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch

Party to the main proceedings

X

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Right of access to data — Communication of data undergoing processing — Meaning — Grant of access to data — Levying a fee.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not precluding the levying of fees in respect of the communication of personal data by a public authority. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not precluding the levying of fees in respect of the communication of personal data by a public authority.

| 2. | Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure that fees levied when the right to access personal data is exercised are not excessive for the purposes of that provision, the level of those fees must not exceed the cost of communicating such data. It is for the national court to carry out any verifications necessary, having regard to the circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure that fees levied when the right to access personal data is exercised are not excessive for the purposes of that provision, the level of those fees must not exceed the cost of communicating such data. It is for the national court to carry out any verifications necessary, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc

(Case C-493/12) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Wording of the claims of the basic patent - Precision and specificity - Functional definition of an active ingredient - Structural definition of an active ingredient - European Patent Convention)

2014/C 45/24

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company Ltd

Defendant: Human Genome Sciences Inc

Re:

Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria for assessment — Application of criteria to products not composed of a combination of medicinal products and medical devices

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an active ingredient to be regarded as ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision, it is not necessary for the active ingredient to be identified in the claims of the patent by a structural formula. Where the active ingredient is covered by a functional formula in the claims of a patent issued by the European Patents Office, Article 3(a) of that regulation does not, in principle, preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that it is possible to reach the conclusion on the basis of those claims, interpreted inter alia in the light of the description of the invention, as required by Article 69 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents and the Protocol on the interpretation of that provision, that the claims relate, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner

(Case C-508/12) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as an enforcement order - Situation in which the judgment was given in the Member State of the creditor in a dispute between two persons not engaged in commercial or professional activities)

2014/C 45/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Walter Vapenik

Defendant: Josef Thurner

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15) — Conditions for certification as an enforcement order in a decision relating to an uncontested claim — Situation in which the decision has been delivered in the creditor’s Member State in a dispute between two consumers.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to contracts concluded between two persons who are not engaged in commercial or professional activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Land Salzburg

(Case C-514/12) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - National legislation providing for account to be taken only of a proportion of the periods of service completed with employers other than Land Salzburg - Restriction of freedom of movement for workers - Justifications - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Objective of rewarding loyalty - Administrative simplification - Transparency)

2014/C 45/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH

Defendant: Land Salzburg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1) — Remuneration of contractual civil servants of a Member State — National legislation providing for account to be taken of all periods of service completed with a specific public employer, but for account to be taken of only a proportion of the periods of service completed after a certain age with other public or private employers.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in determining the reference date for the purposes of the advancement of an employee of a local or regional authority to the next pay step in his grade, account is to be taken of all uninterrupted periods of service completed with that authority, but of only a proportion of any other periods of service.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Dirextra Alta Formazione srl v Regione Puglia

(Case C-523/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate specialist programmes of study - Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of grants subject to conditions targeting providers of post-graduate programmes of study - Condition requiring 10 years’ continuous experience)

2014/C 45/27

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dirextra Alta Formazione srl

Defendant: Regione Puglia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Interpretation of Articles 56 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Articles 11 and 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination — Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate Masters degree courses — Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of student grants conditional upon the level of professionalism of the Masters degree course providers — Provider which has the requisite experience in terms of the number of hours of training completed, but which has not achieved this in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as the provision at issue in the main proceedings, which requires higher education establishments with which students applying for a regional study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund plan to enrol to demonstrate 10 years’ experience where such establishments are neither universities recognised by that national law nor establishments organising approved Masters degree courses.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium

(Case C-561/12) (1)

(Public procurement - Negotiated procedure with prior publication of a contract notice - Whether possible for the contracting authority to negotiate on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications relating to the contract)

2014/C 45/28

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS

Respondents: Rahandusministeerium

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Riigikohus — Interpretation of Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Negotiated procedure with publication of a contract notice — Whether or not possible for the contracting authority to enter into negotiations on tenders that do not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications set out in the contract documents — Technical specifications amended during the negotiations — Whether the public contract may be awarded to a tenderer submitting a tender that does not meet those technical specifications.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts does not allow the contracting authority to negotiate with tenderers tenders that do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/16

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Ivan Jurašinović v Council of the European Union

(Case C-576/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to the documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exceptions to the right of access - Article 4(1)(a), first and third indents - Public security - International relations)

2014/C 45/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ivan Jurašinović (represented by: N. Amara-Lebret, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pellinghelli and B. Driessen, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended composition) of 3 October 2012 in Case T-465/09 Jurašinović v Council by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of the Council decision of 21 September 2009 granting access to some of the reports drawn up by the European Union observers present in Croatia, in the Knin region, between 1 and 31 August 1995 — Application for access to documents held by the Council — Infringement of the right to a fair trial — Infringement of Articles 4(1) and 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) — Reports of observers posted by the European Union in Croatia — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Sensitive documents — Risk of prejudice to the protection of international relations — Previous disclosure of those documents to a defendant in the context of criminal proceedings pending before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia — Proper conduct of the criminal proceedings adversely affected.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Mr Ivan Jurašinović to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ivan Jurašinović to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2013 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Marián Vasko

(Case C-558/13)

2014/C 45/30

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CD Consulting s.r.o.

Defendant: Marián Vasko

Question referred

Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 4 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which in principle does not allow the national court deciding on rights under an endorsed bill of exchange at any stage of the proceedings to examine of its own motion the agreement and the basis of the legal relationship and the possible unfair nature of a contractual term and any breach of the law regulating the consequences of the failure to state the APR in the consumer credit agreement from which the bill of exchange arose?

---

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

(2)  OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2013 — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald

(Case C-559/13)

2014/C 45/31

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna

Defendant: Josef Grünewald

Question referred

Does Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) preclude legislation of a Member State under which private support payments by non-resident taxable persons which are connected with a transfer of revenue-producing domestic assets in the course of a so-called anticipated succession are not tax deductible, whereas such payments are deductible in the case of full liability to taxation, but the deduction results in a corresponding tax liability for a (fully taxable) recipient of the payments?

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hoštická a.s. and Others v Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-561/13)

2014/C 45/32

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 126 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) to be interpreted such that the separate sugar payment is a decoupled payment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 126 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) to be interpreted such that the separate sugar payment is a decoupled payment?

| 2. | Is Article 126(1) of Council Regulation No 73/2009 to be interpreted such that ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ include the representative period chosen by the Member State at that time on the basis of Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, (2) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006? (3) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 126(1) of Council Regulation No 73/2009 to be interpreted such that ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ include the representative period chosen by the Member State at that time on the basis of Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, (2) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006? (3)

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 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) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 32).

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/18

---

Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Total SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-548/08 Total SA v European Commission

(Case C-597/13 P)

2014/C 45/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Total SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Principally:

| — | on the basis of Articles 256 TFEU and 56 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, set aside in full the judgement of the General Court of 13 September 2013 in Case T-548/08 Total v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the basis of Articles 256 TFEU and 56 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, set aside in full the judgement of the General Court of 13 September 2013 in Case T-548/08 Total v European Commission;

| — | grant the form of order which it sought at first instance before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order which it sought at first instance before the General Court;

| — | consequently, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes in so far as it concerns Total; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes in so far as it concerns Total;

In the alternative, exercise its power to amend on the basis of Article 261 TFEU in order to reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Total.

In any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety, including those incurred by Total before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises three main grounds and three in the alternative.

In the first place, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed the principle of audi alteram partem by giving two judgments on the same day which resulted in a modification of the nature of the liability attributed to the appellant and, consequently, in its being rendered more serious.

In the second place, the appellant alleges errors of law relating to the grounds for the judgment of the General Court. First, the General Court erred in law in the course of its review of the lawfulness of the decision, by failing to annul the decision on the ground that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons. Secondly, the General Court failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons in the context of its power to amend on the basis of Article 261 TFEU.

In the third place, the appellant submits that the General Court made errors of law in the context of its power to amend on the basis of Article 261 TFEU by refusing to reduce the appellant’s fine in the same proportions as the fine imposed on the subsidiary company Total Raffinage Marketing. The General Court, first, incorrectly assessed the extent of its power to amend by modifying the joint and several nature of the liability of the appellant and the subsidiary, even though it is authorised only to modify the amount of the fine. Secondly, the appellant considers that the General Court failed to have regard to the caselaw of the Court of Justice concerning the joint liability of a parent company arising from the infringing conduct of the subsidiary company, and infringed the principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality.

In the fourth place, the appellant requests the Court of Justice, in the alternative, to exercise its own power to amend in order to annul or amend the amount of the fine.

In the fifth place, it requests the Court of Justice to amend, on a limited basis, the amount of the fine for the purpose of making it compatible with that imposed on the subsidiary Total Raffinage Marketing in Case T-566/08.

In the last place, it requests the Court of Justice to amend the basic amount of the fine for the purpose of making it compatible with that of the fine imposed on the subsidiary Total Raffinage Marketing in Case T 566/08, either, in the event of an appeal, in the judgment of the Court of Justice given on appeal where the latter considers that the case has reached a stage permitting a final decision, or in the judgment given by the General Court on a referral from the Court of Justice.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/19

---

Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Anbouba v Council

(Case C-605/13 P)

2014/C 45/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Issam Anbouba (represented by: J.-M. Salva and M.-A. Bastin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union;

| — | declare unlawful the decision to include the appellant on the list of persons and entities subject to economic sanctions; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful the decision to include the appellant on the list of persons and entities subject to economic sanctions;

| — | annul the decisions and regulations contested in Case T-563/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions and regulations contested in Case T-563/11;

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

—

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward two grounds of appeal.

In the first place, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by taking the view that the Council, in so far as it could not adduce evidence of the appellant’s support of the regime in Syria, properly applied a presumption that the persons in charge of the main Syrian undertakings supported the regime in Syria. The first part of the first ground of appeal alleges that there is no legal basis for such a presumption. The extremely serious and impeding nature of restrictive measures means that such measures cannot be applied on the basis of a presumption the lawful recourse to which has not been provided for by any legislative act. The second part of the first ground of appeal is based on the disproportionate nature of that presumption in relation to the objective pursued, particularly in view of its extremely general nature. The third part of the first ground of appeal is based on the irrebuttable nature of that presumption. To adduce evidence of the negative — that there is no support for the regime in Syria — would be substantively impossible and adducing positive evidence of opposition to the regime could not reasonably be considered to be the only way of establishing that there is no link to that regime.

In the second place, the appellant claims that the General Court delivered judgment in the absence of evidence on the part of the Council. By the first part of his second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by not carrying out a normal judicial review of the contested decisions, on the one hand, and by delivering its judgment in the absence of evidence adduced before it by the Council, on the other. By the second part of his second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to attach consequences, in the judgment under appeal, to a manifest breach of the rule that the parties should be heard and of the appellant’s rights of defence. The General Court, he claims, released the Council from having to submit evidence or grounds for not submitting such evidence and accepted that the Council could base its decision solely on a presumption to which it was not, however, properly entitled to have recourse.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/19

---

Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-396/10 Zucchetti Rubinetteria v European Commission

(Case C-618/13 P)

2014/C 45/35

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (represented by: M. Condinanzi, P. Ziotti and N. Vasile, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court dismissed the action in Case T-396/10 with regard to the form of order seeking cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court dismissed the action in Case T-396/10 with regard to the form of order seeking cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures);

| — | Give final judgment in the matter in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and cancel, or at least reduce, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the fine imposed by the abovementioned Commission decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Give final judgment in the matter in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and cancel, or at least reduce, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the fine imposed by the abovementioned Commission decision;

| — | In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-396/10. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-396/10.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of EU law with regard to the calculation of the fines and the assessment of the gravity of the infringement, contradictions and inadequate reasoning, as well as a failure by the General Court fully to exercise its power of review. In particular, infringement of Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the principles of personal responsibility, proportionality and equal treatment in the application of penalties in competition-law matters.

The appellant submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court found the contested decision to be contradictory and unlawful in so far as it recognised that Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA committed a less serious infringement than the multinational firms participating in the cartel, as it did not take part therein and was unaware of the extension of the agreement to markets other than the Italian market; however, the General Court did not draw from that the appropriate conclusions for the purposes of setting the fine. The appellant argues that the application of the same multipliers and the failure to take account of mitigating circumstances — with the consequent dismissal of the action, also in respect of cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed — thus amount to an infringement of the general principles mentioned above and of the provisions of points 25 and 29 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/20

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Mamoli Robinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-376/10 Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission

(Case C-619/13 P)

2014/C 45/36

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Mamoli Robinetteria SpA (represented by: F. Capelli and M. Valcada, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the present appeal and, varying the judgment delivered by the General Court on 16 September 2013 in Case T-376/10 Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission,






  — | annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), in so far as it finds that Mamoli Robinetteria SpA infringed Article 101 TFEU and, consequently, annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it imposes on Mamoli Robinetteria SpA a fine amounting to 10 % of the total turnover for 2009, subsequently reduced to EUR 1 041 531 on account of Mamoli’s particular situation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Uphold the present appeal and, varying the judgment delivered by the General Court on 16 September 2013 in Case T-376/10 Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission,

—

annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), in so far as it finds that Mamoli Robinetteria SpA infringed Article 101 TFEU and, consequently, annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it imposes on Mamoli Robinetteria SpA a fine amounting to 10 % of the total turnover for 2009, subsequently reduced to EUR 1 041 531 on account of Mamoli’s particular situation;

| — | On the substance, in the alternative:






  — | annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), by recalculating the fine and reducing it to an amount equal to 0.3 % of the turnover of Mamoli Robinetteria for the year 2003 or, in any event, to such lesser amount, compared with the penalty imposed, as the Court may deem appropriate. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

On the substance, in the alternative:

—

annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), by recalculating the fine and reducing it to an amount equal to 0.3 % of the turnover of Mamoli Robinetteria for the year 2003 or, in any event, to such lesser amount, compared with the penalty imposed, as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward seven grounds of appeal in support of its action.

| 1. | First ground of appeal. Infringement of the procedural principles governing the formulation of the pleas in law
  The appellant maintains that the General Court made a significant error in confusing the pleas in law with the arguments put forward in support of those pleas themselves. Such an error resulted in part of the appellant’s case being held to be inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal. Infringement of the procedural principles governing the formulation of the pleas in law

The appellant maintains that the General Court made a significant error in confusing the pleas in law with the arguments put forward in support of those pleas themselves. Such an error resulted in part of the appellant’s case being held to be inadmissible.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal. Infringement of the rights of the defence
  The appellant maintains that, prior to adoption of the decision, the other parties to the proceedings had the opportunity to put forward arguments in their defence in relation to circumstances not disclosed to Mamoli. The General Court did not properly evaluate this aspect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal. Infringement of the rights of the defence

The appellant maintains that, prior to adoption of the decision, the other parties to the proceedings had the opportunity to put forward arguments in their defence in relation to circumstances not disclosed to Mamoli. The General Court did not properly evaluate this aspect.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal. Breach of the principle of legality in the adoption of the Leniency Notices, in the light of the infringement of Articles 101 to 105 TFEU taken together, and of Article 23 of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1)

  The entire procedure originates in and is based on the Commission Notices which established what is known as the leniency programme. The appellant submits that, in the absence of an act of the European legislature, the Commission does not have any power to grant total or partial immunity for undertakings or, on the basis of the notice relating thereto, to initiate competition-law proceedings which result in the imposition of heavy penalties. The General Court did not provide an adequate response to the appellant’s objections inasmuch as it failed to give due consideration to the various points of law raised. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal. Breach of the principle of legality in the adoption of the Leniency Notices, in the light of the infringement of Articles 101 to 105 TFEU taken together, and of Article 23 of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1)

The entire procedure originates in and is based on the Commission Notices which established what is known as the leniency programme. The appellant submits that, in the absence of an act of the European legislature, the Commission does not have any power to grant total or partial immunity for undertakings or, on the basis of the notice relating thereto, to initiate competition-law proceedings which result in the imposition of heavy penalties. The General Court did not provide an adequate response to the appellant’s objections inasmuch as it failed to give due consideration to the various points of law raised.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003
  The appellant submits that the Commission made substantial errors in the course of its investigation. It maintains that the Commission disregarded the specific nature of the Italian market (for example, structure, characteristics, role of the wholesalers) and conflated the situation on the Italian market with that existing on the German market. That error invalidated the Commission’s conclusions regarding the existence on the Italian market of a price-fixing cartel. Furthermore, the appellant submits that the Commission, as a result of the errors complained of, failed to discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon it. No account at all was taken of the significance of Ideal Standard’s role on the Italian market. The General Court wholly disregarded the appellant’s complaints and arguments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003

The appellant submits that the Commission made substantial errors in the course of its investigation. It maintains that the Commission disregarded the specific nature of the Italian market (for example, structure, characteristics, role of the wholesalers) and conflated the situation on the Italian market with that existing on the German market. That error invalidated the Commission’s conclusions regarding the existence on the Italian market of a price-fixing cartel. Furthermore, the appellant submits that the Commission, as a result of the errors complained of, failed to discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon it. No account at all was taken of the significance of Ideal Standard’s role on the Italian market. The General Court wholly disregarded the appellant’s complaints and arguments.

| 5. | Fifth ground of appeal. Infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and of the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender, in the imposition of the fine on Mamoli and in the determination of the amount of the fine
  The Commission, in imposing on the appellant the maximum penalty, infringed the principles mentioned above. The appellant maintains that its actual conduct was not correctly evaluated by the Commission, which decided on the amount of the fine without taking account of Mamoli’s conduct or of the actual impact of that conduct in the context of the infringement in issue. The Commission also erred in failing to recognise any mitigating circumstances with regard to Mamoli. Although the General Court accepted certain of Mamoli’s objections concerning the errors made by the Commission in the determination of the fine, it did not grant a reduction in the fine. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth ground of appeal. Infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and of the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender, in the imposition of the fine on Mamoli and in the determination of the amount of the fine

The Commission, in imposing on the appellant the maximum penalty, infringed the principles mentioned above. The appellant maintains that its actual conduct was not correctly evaluated by the Commission, which decided on the amount of the fine without taking account of Mamoli’s conduct or of the actual impact of that conduct in the context of the infringement in issue. The Commission also erred in failing to recognise any mitigating circumstances with regard to Mamoli. Although the General Court accepted certain of Mamoli’s objections concerning the errors made by the Commission in the determination of the fine, it did not grant a reduction in the fine.

| 6. | Sixth ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 in conjunction with point 35 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)
  The appellant maintains that, although the Commission understood that Mamoli was in fact in a critical economic situation which undermined the company’s ability to pay, it adopted a decision unsuitable for attaining the objective sought. The General Court failed to assess the arguments put forward by Mamoli. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 in conjunction with point 35 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)

The appellant maintains that, although the Commission understood that Mamoli was in fact in a critical economic situation which undermined the company’s ability to pay, it adopted a decision unsuitable for attaining the objective sought. The General Court failed to assess the arguments put forward by Mamoli.

| 7. | Seventh ground of appeal. Infringement of procedural rules
  The General Court unlawfully refused to grant Mamoli’s applications for measures of inquiry. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh ground of appeal. Infringement of procedural rules

The General Court unlawfully refused to grant Mamoli’s applications for measures of inquiry.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/21

---

Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Anbouba v Council

(Case C-630/13 P)

2014/C 45/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Issam Anbouba (represented by: J.-M. Salva and M.-A. Bastin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union;

| — | Declare the decision to include the appellant on the list of persons and entities covered by the economic sanctions to be unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the decision to include the appellant on the list of persons and entities covered by the economic sanctions to be unlawful;

| — | Annul the decisions and regulations contested in Case T-592/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions and regulations contested in Case T-592/11;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the two actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the two actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant invokes two grounds.

In the first place, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by holding that the Council, without being able to adduce evidence that the appellant supports the Syrian regime, correctly applied a presumption that the directors of the principal undertakings of Syria support the Syrian regime. The first part of the ground of appeal alleges the absence of a legal basis for such a presumption. The extremely serious and constraining nature of the restrictive measures means that they may not be applied on the basis of a presumption for which due provision has not been made by any regulatory act. The second part of the ground of appeal alleges the disproportionate nature of that presumption in relation to the objective pursued, in particular due to its extremely general nature. The third part of the ground of appeal alleges the irrebuttable nature of that presumption. Evidence of the negative, that there is no support for the regime, is, in practical terms, impossible to adduce, and the provision of positive proof of opposition to the regime cannot reasonably be regarded as the only means of establishing the absence of a link with the regime.

In the second place, the appellant accuses the General Court of having given judgment without evidence produced by the Council. By the first part of its second ground of appeal, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law, first, by not carrying out a normal review of the contested decisions, and second, by giving judgment without the Council providing it with evidence. In the second part of its second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court failed to declare, in the judgment under appeal, a manifest infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and the rights of the defence of the appellant. The General Court relieved the Council of the requirement to furnish evidence or the grounds justifying the failure to provide that evidence and accepted that the Council could base its decision solely on a presumption on which it, however, could not validly rely.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/22

---

Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing, against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-566/08 Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission

(Case C-634/13 P)

2014/C 45/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, C. Lemaire, S. Naudin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded the cessation of Total Marketing Services’ (‘TMS’) participation in the infringement after 12 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded the cessation of Total Marketing Services’ (‘TMS’) participation in the infringement after 12 May 2004;

| — | set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded any unjustified unequal treatment between TMS and Repsol concerning the duration of their participation in the infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded any unjustified unequal treatment between TMS and Repsol concerning the duration of their participation in the infringement;

| — | set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded the interruption of TMS’ participation in the infringement between 26 May 2000 and 27 June 2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded the interruption of TMS’ participation in the infringement between 26 May 2000 and 27 June 2001;

| — | set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court did not respond to the plea alleging failure to examine evidence of TMS’ competitive behavior on the market; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court did not respond to the plea alleging failure to examine evidence of TMS’ competitive behavior on the market;

| — | rule definitively, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, on that basis, annul the decision in so far as it concerns TMS and, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fine imposed on TMS; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule definitively, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, on that basis, annul the decision in so far as it concerns TMS and, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fine imposed on TMS;

| — | should the Court not rule on the present case, reserve costs and refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, in accordance with the Court’s ruling; |
| --- | --- |

—

should the Court not rule on the present case, reserve costs and refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, in accordance with the Court’s ruling;

| — | lastly, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article [184] of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

lastly, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article [184] of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant invokes four grounds.

In its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed Article 101 TFEU, the rules on the adducing of evidence, the principles of the presumption of innocence and legal certainty and the obligation to state reasons by holding that the appellant participated in the infringement between 12 May 2004 and 28 April 2005 on the ground that it failed to show that it publicly distanced itself from the agreement during that period.

By its second ground of appeal, divided into two parts, the appellant considers that the General Court infringed, first, the principle of equal treatment and its obligation to state reasons and, secondly, that it distorted the documentary evidence relating to the invitations received by TMS and Repsol, in so far as the General Court excluded any exit by TMS from the agreement after the meeting of 11 to 12 May 2004, but approved the exit of Repsol after the meeting of 3 to 4 August 2004.

By its third ground of appeal, divided into two parts, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed Article 101 TFEU, the rules on the adducing of evidence, the principles of the presumption of innocence and legal certainty and the obligation to state reasons by holding that TMS did not interrupt its participation in the infringement between 26 May 2000 and 26 June 2001 on the ground that it had failed to show that it publicly distanced itself from the agreement during that period.

Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed the principles of effective judicial protection, that penalties must be specific to the infringing party, and the obligation to state reasons in so far as the General Court rejected without examination the plea alleging failure to take account of evidence of TMS’ competitive behaviour.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/23

---

Action brought on 3 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-639/13)

2014/C 45/39

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to goods intended to provide fire protection, mentioned in Annex 3 to the Law of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, (1) in conjunction with Annex III to that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to goods intended to provide fire protection, mentioned in Annex 3 to the Law of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, (1) in conjunction with Annex III to that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Commission submits that the Republic of Poland applies a reduced rate of VAT to goods which are not mentioned in Annex III to the directive. Those goods, however, require to be taxed at the standard rate as they cannot come within the scope of the exception provided for in Article 98(2) of the directive. In addition, the argument set out by Poland is related exclusively to economic policy and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of providing legal justification for breaching the provisions of the directive. In the Commission’s view, there can therefore be no doubt that the provisions of Polish law have not been adapted to the requirements of the directive.

---

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

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/23

---

Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch — Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch v Commission

(Case C-642/13 P)

2014/C 45/40

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch — Belgium (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and N. Lorjé, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch v Commission in so far as it dismisses the appellant’s claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch v Commission in so far as it dismisses the appellant’s claims;

| — | in the alternative, annul in part the determination in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 16 September 2013 in so far as it concerns the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul in part the determination in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 16 September 2013 in so far as it concerns the appellant;

| — | in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of 23 June 2010 to such an amount as the Court considers fair and appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of 23 June 2010 to such an amount as the Court considers fair and appropriate;

| — | in the further alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 and refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 and refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | in each case, order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in each case, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

| 1. | In its first ground, the appellant argues that the General Court is guilty of distorting evidence by wrongly failing to take account of information, submitted by the appellant and discussed during the oral procedure before the General Court, that was relevant to its verdict. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In its first ground, the appellant argues that the General Court is guilty of distorting evidence by wrongly failing to take account of information, submitted by the appellant and discussed during the oral procedure before the General Court, that was relevant to its verdict.

| 2. | In its
  second ground
  , the appellant objects to the merging of factually and legally independent courses of conduct into one allegedly single, complex and continuous infringement. The appellant also contends that the application by the General Court and the Commission of the principle of ‘one single, complex and continuous infringement’ is at variance with the right to due process and the proper administration of justice and contrary to the legal requirement of review by the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In its
  second ground
  , the appellant objects to the merging of factually and legally independent courses of conduct into one allegedly single, complex and continuous infringement. The appellant also contends that the application by the General Court and the Commission of the principle of ‘one single, complex and continuous infringement’ is at variance with the right to due process and the proper administration of justice and contrary to the legal requirement of review by the General Court.

| 3. | By its
  third ground
  , the appellant contends that the General Court failed to carry out a proper legal assessment, thereby allowing the guarantee of effective legal protection under European Union law to be infringed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By its
  third ground
  , the appellant contends that the General Court failed to carry out a proper legal assessment, thereby allowing the guarantee of effective legal protection under European Union law to be infringed.

| 4. | By its
  fourth ground
  , the appellant argues that the fine imposed cannot, in any event, be supported by the outcome of the General Court’s examination and that it is disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

4.

By its
  fourth ground
  , the appellant argues that the fine imposed cannot, in any event, be supported by the outcome of the General Court’s examination and that it is disproportionate.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/24

---

Appeal brought on 5 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission

(Case C-644/13 P)

2014/C 45/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10, in so far as it dismisses the appellant’s action; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10, in so far as it dismisses the appellant’s action;

| — | in the alternative, annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of 23 June 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of 23 June 2010;

| — | also in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

also in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward four grounds of appeal.

By the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that there is a contradiction in the General Court’s assessment of the evidence relating to all of the facts concerning France. The General Court assessed, in the judgment under appeal, three items of evidence in a manner which was contrary, even diametrically opposed, to its findings in relation to that same evidence in the parallel Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10 Sanitec, and T-380/10 Wabco, Ideal Standard and Others, in which the applicants were acquitted in respect of the allegations relating to France. According to the appellant in the present case, such a fundamental contradiction — as evidenced by the opposite conclusions reached in respect of the same evidence — infringes the principle of equal treatment and the principle of in dubio pro reo and also adversely affects the logical and legal consistency of the General Court’s judgment.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law. The General Court, it submits, artificially grouped together acts that were legally distinct and factually unrelated in order to classify them as constituting one continuous and complex infringement. Moreover, the General Court failed to take account of the fact that the measures in question, which it had nevertheless examined together, were not complementary.

By the third ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the extent of the review carried out by the General Court, which confined itself to a limited review and, by so doing, failed to exercise in full its powers of judicial review and revision. The appellant takes the view that this amounts to an infringement of its right to a fair hearing.

By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the fine imposed is disproportionate.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/25

---

Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-648/13)

2014/C 45/42

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to transpose, incompletely transposing, or incorrectly transposing Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27, Article 8(1), Article 9(2), Article 10(3) and Article 11(5) of, and Annex V (points 1.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4 and 2.4.1) and Annex VII (Part A, points 7.2 to 7.10) to, 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, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions and under Article 24 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to transpose, incompletely transposing, or incorrectly transposing Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27, Article 8(1), Article 9(2), Article 10(3) and Article 11(5) of, and Annex V (points 1.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4 and 2.4.1) and Annex VII (Part A, points 7.2 to 7.10) to, 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, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions and under Article 24 of that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27

The Commission claims that the Republic of Poland has failed correctly and fully to transpose the definitions contained in Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27 of Directive 2000/60/EC.

Article 8(1)

The Commission criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that the Polish provisions do not set out requirements corresponding to the specifications for Natura-2000 sites.

Article 9(2)

In the Commission’s view, Article 9(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC was not fully or properly transposed in so far as concerns the obligation to include, in the river basin management plans, a report on the steps planned for effecting recovery of costs which will contribute to achieving the environmental objectives of that directive.

Article 10(3)

The Commission takes the view that the Republic of Poland has not transposed the obligation set out in Article 10(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, even though transposition of that provision is crucial to achieving the objectives of the water directive.

Article 11(5)

The Commission claims that the Republic of Poland has incorrectly transposed the provision contained in Article 11(5) of Directive 2000/60/EC inasmuch as the scope of the corresponding Polish provisions is narrower than in the directive.

Annex V

The Commission takes the view that, although Annex V was in large measure transposed, a number of points in that annex were not satisfactorily transposed in Polish law. The criticism of incorrect transposition relates in particular to the inclusion of estimates with regard to the degree of reliability in the river management plans (points 1.3, 1.3.4 and 2.4.1), the monitoring of habitats and species in protected areas (point 1.3.5) and the exclusion of hydromorphological elements in the classification of water status (point 1.4.2).

Annex VII

The Commission criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that it incorrectly transposed points 7.2 to 7.10 of Part A of Annex VII, since the provisions on the national water-protection programme must be distinguished from the river basin management plans within the terms of Annex VII to Directive 2000/60/EC. For that reason, in the Commission’s view, the national provisions adopted by the Polish authorities which constitute transposition of Article 11 of the directive are insufficient to ensure transposition of the requirements set out in points 7.2 to 7.10 of Annex VII.

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/26

---

Action brought on 13 December 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

(Case C-660/13)

2014/C 45/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Elera, E. Finnegan, P. Mahnič Bruni, agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution;

| — | order that the effects of the decision be maintained until it is replaced; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the effects of the decision be maintained until it is replaced; and

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

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | By means of the application the Council has requested, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Commission's decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution (the ‘contested decision’) (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

By means of the application the Council has requested, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Commission's decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution (the ‘contested decision’) (1).

| 2. | The contested decision, by which the Commission empowered two of its members to sign the abovementioned Memorandum without prior authorisation by the Council, is considered by the Council to be illegal because it constitutes a violation of fundamental principles of Union law enshrined in the Treaties. More specifically, the action for annulment is based on two pleas:






  1. | The Commission's decision infringes the principle of distribution of powers contained in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The contested decision, by which the Commission empowered two of its members to sign the abovementioned Memorandum without prior authorisation by the Council, is considered by the Council to be illegal because it constitutes a violation of fundamental principles of Union law enshrined in the Treaties. More specifically, the action for annulment is based on two pleas:

1.

The Commission's decision infringes the principle of distribution of powers contained in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance.

| 2. | The Commission's course of action leading to the adoption of the decision and the signature of the Addendum infringes the principle of sincere cooperation contained in Article 13(2) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission's course of action leading to the adoption of the decision and the signature of the Addendum infringes the principle of sincere cooperation contained in Article 13(2) TEU.

| 3. | As regards the first plea, by signing alone the Addendum to the MoU with Switzerland, on behalf of the Union and without prior authorisation by the Council, the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of distribution of powers set out in Article 13(2) TEU as it has taken upon itself the power to decide on the policy of the Union which is a power of the Council pursuant to Article 16 TEU, consequently breaching the principle of institutional balance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As regards the first plea, by signing alone the Addendum to the MoU with Switzerland, on behalf of the Union and without prior authorisation by the Council, the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of distribution of powers set out in Article 13(2) TEU as it has taken upon itself the power to decide on the policy of the Union which is a power of the Council pursuant to Article 16 TEU, consequently breaching the principle of institutional balance.

| 4. | As regards the second plea, the Council considers that the course of action of the Commission has infringed the principle of sincere cooperation on four counts: 1) by knowingly impinging on the powers that the Council enjoys pursuant to Article 16 TEU and therefore acting in breach of the principle of distribution of powers of Article 13(2) TEU and consequently of the principle of institutional balance; 2) by knowingly and unilaterally disregarding the role of Member States in the matter, in breach of the principle of conferral of powers of Article 4(1) TEU; 3) by intentionally acting in a manner which rendered ineffectual the efforts of the Council to correct the situation created by the Commission; and 4) by knowingly acting in a manner which compromised the principle of unity in the external representation of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As regards the second plea, the Council considers that the course of action of the Commission has infringed the principle of sincere cooperation on four counts: 1) by knowingly impinging on the powers that the Council enjoys pursuant to Article 16 TEU and therefore acting in breach of the principle of distribution of powers of Article 13(2) TEU and consequently of the principle of institutional balance; 2) by knowingly and unilaterally disregarding the role of Member States in the matter, in breach of the principle of conferral of powers of Article 4(1) TEU; 3) by intentionally acting in a manner which rendered ineffectual the efforts of the Council to correct the situation created by the Commission; and 4) by knowingly acting in a manner which compromised the principle of unity in the external representation of the Union.

---

(1)  Commission document C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/26

---

Action brought on 17 December 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-674/13)

2014/C 45/44

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to take all of the measures necessary to enforce immediately and effectively Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C-36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (1) by means of the full recovery of the aid incompatible with the internal market which was granted and the alteration to the aid system in respect of the future, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 288 TFEU and 108(2) TFEU, the principle of effectiveness, Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) and Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take all of the measures necessary to enforce immediately and effectively Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C-36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (1) by means of the full recovery of the aid incompatible with the internal market which was granted and the alteration to the aid system in respect of the future, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 288 TFEU and 108(2) TFEU, the principle of effectiveness, Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) and Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission decision;

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By failing to take all of the measures necessary to enforce immediately and effectively Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C-36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG by means of the full recovery of the aid incompatible with the internal market which was granted and the alteration to the aid system in respect of the future, the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the view of the Commission, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 288 TFEU and 108(2) TFEU, the principle of effectiveness, Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty and Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission decision.

Germany, the Commission argues, refuses to collect data in the context of the implementation of Decision 2012/636/EU in order to make a delineation of the objectively relevant product market for parcel services for the period 2003-2012 (for the purposes of the recovery) and for the period following 2012. As a result, Germany is blocking the implementation of Decision 2012/636/EU. That decision is based on non-regulated postal services both with regard to the recovery of the unlawful and incompatible aid granted in the past and with regard to the abolition of/alteration to the pension subsidy in respect of the future. In order to be able to determine, however, which postal services those are, an analysis of the objectively relevant product market for parcel services is a conditio sine qua non.

The refusal to carry out that analysis prevents Germany from enforcing immediately and effectively the full recovery of the aid incompatible with the internal market which has been granted and from making the alteration to the aid system in respect of the future.

In the alternative, in the event that Germany’s legal view that it could have recourse to final decisions of the competent authorities in the implementation of Decision 2012/636/EU is correct, quod non, Germany should have taken a separate ‘B2B’ parcel service market as a starting point. It is common ground between Germany and the Commission that Deutsche Post AG has not held a market-dominant position on such a separate ‘B2B’ parcel service market at any time since 2003. The ‘B2B’ parcel service market thus comes under non-regulated postal services.

Germany ought therefore to have classified the pension subsidy for those officials assigned to the ‘B2B’ parcel service as aid incompatible with the internal market both when calculating the amount of aid to be recovered for the period 2003-2012 and when altering the aid system for the future. It should have recovered that aid in respect of the past and abolished it in respect of the future.

---

(1)  Notified under document C(2012) 184, OJ 2012 L 289, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/27

---

Appeal brought on 23 December 2013 by Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-682/13 P)

2014/C 45/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially set aside the order of the General Court delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 in so far as it dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, (1) published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2011, and |
| --- | --- |

—

partially set aside the order of the General Court delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 in so far as it dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, (1) published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2011, and

| — | annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2011. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2011.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant alleges, first, infringement of its fundamental rights to due process under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The action for annulment, it submits, is allowed on its merits by the primary law of the European Union. The fundamental right under the first sentence of Article 47 seeks to ensure that effective use can be made of remedies allowed on their merits. The order of the General Court infringes the appellant’s right to an effective remedy within the meaning of the guarantee of effective legal protection under the first sentence of Article 47 of the Charter.

Secondly, the appellant alleges infringement of its fundamental right under the second sentence of Article 47 inasmuch as its fundamental right under Article 21 to non-discrimination and its fundamental right under Article 16 to the fundamental legal guarantee of the freedom to conduct a business are infringed without its action brought having been treated as an effective legal remedy. The appellant takes issue with its discrimination as a producer of organic foodstuffs on the ground that the authorisation of steviol glycosides occurred in a manner which conferred on its conventional competitors an unfounded and unfair competitive advantage.

The appellant seeks, in addition, to be treated equally by the European Union legislature. It alleges infringement of the general principle of equality under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It also alleges discrimination under Article 21 of the Charter in its capacity as an undertaking producing organic food vis-à-vis conventional food undertakings. With a view to establishing that the discrimination in question is arbitrary, the appellant invokes the European Union’s agreement with the United States of America of February 2012, which allows organic products produced with steviol glycosides in accordance with US organic law to be distributed within the European Union’s internal market with the organic logo of the EU. This, it argues, shows that there is no valid reason to allow the appellant’s conventional competitors to produce yoghurt with steviol glycosides and, in addition, to choose a legal instrument which causes the appellant itself to be denied that freedom to conduct a business. The appellant alleges infringement of its fundamental right under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the guarantee of its freedom to conduct a business.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 295, p. 205.

---

General Court

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország (CORDIO)

(Case T-388/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CORDIO - Earlier Community word mark CORDIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 45/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Singer (Obertrubach, Germany) (represented by: B. Korom, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: A. Nagy, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2012 (Case R 1842/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt and Ms Daniela Singer

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Daniela Singer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Daniela Singer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM;

| 3. | Orders Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/29

---

Order of the General Court of 9 December 2013 — El Corte Inglés v Commission

(Case T-38/09) (1)

(Customs Union - Import of textiles declared to have originated in Jamaica - Recovery ‘a posteriori’ of import duties - Application for remission of duties - Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Commission decision rejecting that application - Annulment by the national court of the decision of the national authorities to enter in the accounts duties a posteriori - No need to adjudicate)

2014/C 45/47

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Baz and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Axstores AB, formerly Åhléns AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented initially by P. Fohlin and U. Käll, subsequently by U. Käll and T. Wetterlundh, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6317 final of 3 November 2008, finding, first, that it is justified to proceed to recovery a posteriori of those import duties not demanded from the applicant and, second, that the remission of those duties is not justified by the existence of a special situation, regarding the import of textiles declared to have originated in Jamaica (Case REM 03/07).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/30

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Government of Aragón and Others v Council

(Case T-150/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Decision concerning aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines - Partial annulment - Non-severability - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 45/48

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Government of Aragón (Spain); Principado de Asturias (Spain); and Junta de Castilla y León (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, E. Echeverría Álvarez and M. López Garrido, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, L. Flynn and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Decision 2010/787/EU of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 24).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Government of Aragón (Spain), the Principado de Asturias (Spain) and the Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) are ordered to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Government of Aragón (Spain), the Principado de Asturias (Spain) and the Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) are ordered to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/30

---

Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission

(Case T-634/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Appointment to post of Director of Directorate E ‘Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’ - Rejection of the appellant’s candidature - Appointment of another candidate - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 45/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and L. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-72/10 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission, seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/31

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — MAF v EIOPA

(Case T-23/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Languages - Publication by the EIOPA of consultative documents on its internet site exclusively in English - Non-actionable measures - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 45/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mutuelle des architectes français assurances (MAF) (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) (represented by: J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of an alleged decision of the EIOPA to publish information on its internet site exclusively in English and, specifically, to launch public consultations exclusively in that language and, secondly, of the alleged decision of the Executive Director of the EIOPA, of 16 January 2012, rejecting the MAF’s request for the withdrawal of the first alleged decision and the publication of the abovementioned consultations and all information on the EIOPA’s internet site in all the official languages of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Mutuelle des architectes français assurances (MAF) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Mutuelle des architectes français assurances (MAF) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/31

---

Order of the General Court of 26 November 2013 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER)

(Case T-38/12) (1)

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

2014/C 45/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pips BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. van den Berg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and D. Kämper, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2011 (Case R 2420/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG and Pips BV.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/31

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Wirtgen v OHIM (Shape of a chisel holder)

(Case T-179/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

2014/C 45/52

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wirtgen GmbH (Windhagen, Germany) (represented by: S. Jackermeier, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2012 (Case R 1923/2011-4), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional mark in the form of a chisel holder as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/32

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — von Storch and Others v ECB

(Case T-492/12) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Decisions adopted by the ECB - Technical characteristics relating to Eurosystem Outright Monetary Transactions - Measures seeking to maintain the availability of collateral - Temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral - Not directly affected - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 45/53

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Sven A. von Storch and Others (Berlin, Germany) and the 5 216 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Kerber and B. von Storch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Kroppenstedt and G. Gruber, Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, primarily, of the ECB’s decision of 6 September 2012 concerning a certain number of technical characteristics relating to Eurosystem Outright Monetary Transactions on the secondary sovereign debt markets, secondly, of the decision of the ECB of 6 September 2012 adopting additional measures intended to maintain the availability of collateral for counterparties in order to maintain their access to Eurosystem transactions to provide liquidity and, in the alternative, of Guideline 2012/641/EU of the ECB of 10 October 2012 amending Guideline ECB/2012/18 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral (ECB/2012/23) (OJ L 284, p. 14).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Mr Sven von Storch and the 5 216 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the present order shall bear their own costs and are ordered to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Sven von Storch and the 5 216 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the present order shall bear their own costs and are ordered to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/32

---

Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission

(Case T-32/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Nomination to post of Director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice’ - Rejection of the applicant’s candidature - Nomination of another candidate - Misuse of powers - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 45/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2012 in Case F-120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission, seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/33

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-203/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 45/55

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/33

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-204/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 45/56

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 in Case F-95/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/33

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-205/15 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 45/57

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 in Case F-100/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/34

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL)

(Case T-242/13) (1)

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

2014/C 45/58

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Castell Macía (Elche, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and H. Mosback, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) (Budapest, Hungary)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 February 2013 (Case R 1401/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) and M. José Castell Macía.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2014 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission

(Case T-505/13 R)

(Interim measures - Arrangements for the association of overseas countries and territories - 10th European Development Fund - Implementing rules - Netherlands Antilles - Application for suspension of implementation - Application for interim measures - Whether admissible)

2014/C 45/59

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Sona (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles) and Nao NV (Curaçao) (represented by: R. Martens, K. Beirnaert and A. Van Vaerenbergh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, G. Wils and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Re:

Application (i) for suspension of the implementation of the Commission’s decision to designate International Management Group as the body to which powers are delegated in the context of the indirect centralised management of resources required to implement the single programming document for the Netherlands Antilles under the 10th European Development Fund and (ii) requesting the General Court provisionally to order the Commission to enter into negotiations with the applicants in good faith with a view to concluding a delegation agreement entrusting Stichting Sona with the tasks for the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund concerning the Netherlands Antilles, pending publication of the final report of the European Anti-Fraud Office following the investigation of the drainage project on the island of Bonaire.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/35

---

Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission

(Case T-578/13)

2014/C 45/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Luxembourg Industries Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | Annul the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision of 8 October 2013, notified to the applicants on 9 October 2013, concerning the publication of certain parts of the Peer Review Report and Final Addendum on Potassium Phosphonates in respect of which the Applicants claimed confidentiality pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 (2) (the ‘Contested Decision’).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets enshrined in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, following a misinterpretation of the above provisions and an erroneous assessment of the applicants’ claims for confidentiality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets enshrined in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, following a misinterpretation of the above provisions and an erroneous assessment of the applicants’ claims for confidentiality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breaches the fundamental principles of EU law, the principle of sound administration and the applicants’ right of defence, by failing to give the applicants sufficient opportunity to defend and clarify the rationale behind their confidentiality claims. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breaches the fundamental principles of EU law, the principle of sound administration and the applicants’ right of defence, by failing to give the applicants sufficient opportunity to defend and clarify the rationale behind their confidentiality claims.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, p.1)

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 of 25 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the procedure for the assessment of active substances which were not on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive (OJ L 53, p.51)

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/35

---

Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Real Express v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

(Case T-580/13)

2014/C 45/61

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Real Express Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: C. Anitoae, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1519/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1519/2012-4;

| — | Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in blue and red containing the verbal element ‘real’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 512 609

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade marks Nos 38 089 and 80 065

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/36

---

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Granette & Starorežná Distilleries v OHIM — Bacardi (42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.)

(Case T-607/13)

2014/C 45/62

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liechtenstein)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | join the proceedings in this case to the proceedings in Case T-435/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the proceedings in this case to the proceedings in Case T-435/12;

| — | dismiss the action brought by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the defendant’s decision of 9 July 2012 in Case R 2100/2011-2 (Case T-435/12); |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the defendant’s decision of 9 July 2012 in Case R 2100/2011-2 (Case T-435/12);

| — | alter the defendant’s decision of 16 September 2013 in Case R 1605/2012-2 so as to reject the form of order sought by the other party to the proceedings No B 1753550 against the application for the Community trade mark ‘42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol’; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the defendant’s decision of 16 September 2013 in Case R 1605/2012-2 so as to reject the form of order sought by the other party to the proceedings No B 1753550 against the application for the Community trade mark ‘42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol’;

| — | order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.’

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bacardi Co. Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and national trade mark containing the word element ‘42 BELOW’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/36

---

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE)

(Case T-618/13)

2014/C 45/63

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: T. Heydn, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11September 2013 given in Case R 1369/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11September 2013 given in Case R 1369/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AAVA CORE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 712 811

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 551 626 of the word mark ‘JAVA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42 and 45; well-known trade mark ‘JAVA’ in all Member States of the European Union for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/37

---

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

(Case T-624/13)

2014/C 45/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1504/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1504/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark claiming the colour green containing the verbal element ‘Darjeeling’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 466 269

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/37

---

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie)

(Case T-625/13)

2014/C 45/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1502/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1502/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark claiming the colour green containing the verbal element ‘Darjeeling collection de lingerie’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 466 228

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/38

---

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (DARJEELING collection de lingerie)

(Case T-626/13)

2014/C 45/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1501/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1501/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Darjeeling collection de lingerie’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 468 463

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/38

---

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

(Case T-627/13)

2014/C 45/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 1387/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 1387/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Darjeeling’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 9 468 521

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/39

---

Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Watch TV v Council

(Case T-639/13)

2014/C 45/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Watch TV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. de Visscher and M. von Kuegelgen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Council of the European Union of 30 September 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council of the European Union of 30 September 2013;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union not to accept its tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 in Contract UCA 190/11 for the provision of ‘audiovisual and multimedia services to the Council of the European Union/European Council’ (OJ 2012/S 26-041228).

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation (1) and of Articles 131(5), 135(2) and 146(3) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation, (2) in view of the fact that the Council awarded the contract to a tenderer whose tender allegedly does not meet the obligatory minimum requirements relating to the suitability of candidates, as set out in the technical specifications. The applicant claims that the Council ought, therefore, to have automatically rejected the tender which it accepted.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/39

---

Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Rogesa v Commission

(Case T-643/13)

2014/C 45/69

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P. Schütter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 25 September 2013 (Ref GestDem No 2013/1504), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 25 September 2013 (Ref GestDem No 2013/1504), and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | Right of access to the contested documents and lack of grounds for refusal under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)







  — | The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as it has a right of access to the documents requested by it and grounds for refusing access do not exist. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Right of access to the contested documents and lack of grounds for refusal under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

—

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as it has a right of access to the documents requested by it and grounds for refusing access do not exist.

| — | The applicant maintains that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that in any event an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents exists. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant maintains that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that in any event an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents exists.

| — | The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not apply, as the decision-making process, on which the Commission relies, was not available when the contested decision was made. The relevant Commission decision (2013/448/EU) was issued on 5 September 2013. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not apply, as the decision-making process, on which the Commission relies, was not available when the contested decision was made. The relevant Commission decision (2013/448/EU) was issued on 5 September 2013.

| — | The applicant also claims that the Commission, in any event, had to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting identification characteristics. The Commission’s decision also infringes the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TUE. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also claims that the Commission, in any event, had to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting identification characteristics. The Commission’s decision also infringes the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TUE.

| 2. | Procedural irregularity






  — | The applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed as the Commission did not observe the time-limit laid down by the provision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Procedural irregularity

—

The applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed as the Commission did not observe the time-limit laid down by the provision.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/40

---

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-659/13)

2014/C 45/70

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of the contested regulation and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of the contested regulation and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof
  In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40 in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof

In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40 in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 290 TFEU
  In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 290 TFEU

In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU
  In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties.

---

(1)  Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (OJ 2010 L 207, p. 1).

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/41

---

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v European Commission

(Case T-660/13)

2014/C 45/71

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6) and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of the contested regulation, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of the contested regulation, and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof
  In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40, in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof

In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40, in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 209 TFEU
  In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 209 TFEU

In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU
  In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties.

---

(1)  Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (OJ 2010 L 207, p. 1).

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/41

---

Action brought on 16 December 2013 — K Chimica v ECHA

(Case T-675/13)

2014/C 45/72

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: K Chimica Srl (Mirano (VE), Italy) (represented by: R. Buizza and M. Rota, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul ECHA Decision No (2013) 3665 of 15 October 2013 and grant K Chimica SME status; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul ECHA Decision No (2013) 3665 of 15 October 2013 and grant K Chimica SME status;

| — | apply the preferential fees provided for SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

—

apply the preferential fees provided for SMEs;

| — | annul invoice No 10029302 in the amount of EUR 9 300 representing the difference due in respect of the full fee tariff applied to K Chimica; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul invoice No 10029302 in the amount of EUR 9 300 representing the difference due in respect of the full fee tariff applied to K Chimica;

| — | annul the administrative charge in the amount of EUR 19 900 imposed by ECHA by way of invoice No 10043954. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the administrative charge in the amount of EUR 19 900 imposed by ECHA by way of invoice No 10043954.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas.

| 1. | First plea, concerning the interpretation of Commission Recommendation No 2003/361 with respect to the criteria for classifying SMEs.






  — | The applicant claim in this regard that, for purposes of classification as an SME, it is necessary to verify whether the target enterprise is an autonomous enterprise or rather forms part of a group of companies. Depending on the role performed by the target enterprise, it will be necessary to evaluate the financial data of the enterprises in the group and, in particular, the financial data of the ‘partner’ enterprises and those of the ‘linked’ enterprises. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea, concerning the interpretation of Commission Recommendation No 2003/361 with respect to the criteria for classifying SMEs.

—

The applicant claim in this regard that, for purposes of classification as an SME, it is necessary to verify whether the target enterprise is an autonomous enterprise or rather forms part of a group of companies. Depending on the role performed by the target enterprise, it will be necessary to evaluate the financial data of the enterprises in the group and, in particular, the financial data of the ‘partner’ enterprises and those of the ‘linked’ enterprises.

| — | On this point, the applicant submits that the basic rule for assessing the size of the target enterprise is the rule according to which, in addition to data relating to its size, the following data are to be added:






  (i) | the data of any partner enterprise of the target enterprise situated immediately upstream or downstream of the target enterprise, to an extent equivalent to the interest in the capital or percentage of voting rights. 100 % of the data of any enterprise ‘linked’ to those ‘partner’ undertakings must be aggregated with the data relating to the target enterprise thus calculated, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

On this point, the applicant submits that the basic rule for assessing the size of the target enterprise is the rule according to which, in addition to data relating to its size, the following data are to be added:

(i)

the data of any partner enterprise of the target enterprise situated immediately upstream or downstream of the target enterprise, to an extent equivalent to the interest in the capital or percentage of voting rights. 100 % of the data of any enterprise ‘linked’ to those ‘partner’ undertakings must be aggregated with the data relating to the target enterprise thus calculated,

| (ii) | 100 % of the data relating to the enterprises directly or indirectly ‘linked’ to the target enterprise. The data of any partner enterprise of the enterprises linked to the target undertaking immediately upstream or downstream of the target enterprise, to an extent equivalent to the interest in the capital or percentage of voting rights, must be aggregated with 100 % of the data relating to the enterprises linked to the target enterprise. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

100 % of the data relating to the enterprises directly or indirectly ‘linked’ to the target enterprise. The data of any partner enterprise of the enterprises linked to the target undertaking immediately upstream or downstream of the target enterprise, to an extent equivalent to the interest in the capital or percentage of voting rights, must be aggregated with 100 % of the data relating to the enterprises linked to the target enterprise.

| 2. | Second plea, concerning the failure to recognise K. Chimica as an SME.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that, on the basis of Article 6 of the annex to Commission Recommendation No 2003/361, the data relating to K. Chimica’s possible classification as an SME are:






  (i) | 100 % of the data relating to K. Chimica; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, concerning the failure to recognise K. Chimica as an SME.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that, on the basis of Article 6 of the annex to Commission Recommendation No 2003/361, the data relating to K. Chimica’s possible classification as an SME are:

(i)

100 % of the data relating to K. Chimica;

| (ii) | 100 % of the data relating to I.C.B. S.r.l; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

100 % of the data relating to I.C.B. S.r.l;

| (iii) | 40 % of the data relating to Medini Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

40 % of the data relating to Medini Ltd;

| (iv) | 36.66 % of the data relating to ALO Inmobilien GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

36.66 % of the data relating to ALO Inmobilien GmbH.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/42

---

Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Italian international film v EACEA

(Case T-676/13)

2014/C 45/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian international film Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini and B. Bettelli, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | grant the form of order sought, and consequently annul EACEA’s decision of 8 October 2013 concerning the rejection of the project relating to the film ‘Only God Forgives’ under the call for proposals EACEA/21/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought, and consequently annul EACEA’s decision of 8 October 2013 concerning the rejection of the project relating to the film ‘Only God Forgives’ under the call for proposals EACEA/21/12;

| — | direct EACEA to take all measures resulting therefrom; |
| --- | --- |

—

direct EACEA to take all measures resulting therefrom;

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

—

order EACEA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency concerning the rejection of the project relating to the film ‘Only God Forgives’ under EACEA’s call for proposals EACEA/21/12 (MEDIA 2007 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the ‘Selective’ scheme 2013) (OJ 2012 C 300, p. [5]).

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea, alleging breach of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 133(3) of the Financial Regulation by virtue of the defective statement of reasons.






  — | The applicant claims in particular in this regard that it does not understand why, in the present case, the defendant formed the view that the project which it had submitted was ineligible. The contested decision provides reasons for rejection which differ from those set out in the letter sent previously on 7 August 2013, stating that there was a failure to respect an eligibility criterion in the guidelines which differed from the criterion mentioned in the pre-printed part of that letter (distribution of the film to cinemas not undertaken by the applicant itself). However, in the contested decision, the project is rejected by reference to the fifth subparagraph of Article 5.1 of the guidelines, according to which a subcontractor may be used, albeit it to a limited extent. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The first plea, alleging breach of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 133(3) of the Financial Regulation by virtue of the defective statement of reasons.

—

The applicant claims in particular in this regard that it does not understand why, in the present case, the defendant formed the view that the project which it had submitted was ineligible. The contested decision provides reasons for rejection which differ from those set out in the letter sent previously on 7 August 2013, stating that there was a failure to respect an eligibility criterion in the guidelines which differed from the criterion mentioned in the pre-printed part of that letter (distribution of the film to cinemas not undertaken by the applicant itself). However, in the contested decision, the project is rejected by reference to the fifth subparagraph of Article 5.1 of the guidelines, according to which a subcontractor may be used, albeit it to a limited extent.

| 2. | The second plea, alleging breach of Article 167 TFEU and the implementing rules, including the Financial Regulation, and of points 3 and 4 of the call for proposals EACEA/21/12.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that there is a manifest error in the arguments contained in the contested decision. On this point, the applicant states that it is clear from the content of the contested decision that EACEA erroneously and arbitrarily characterised the contractual relationship between the applicant and Rai Cinema as being subcontractual in nature. It also emerges from that letter that EACEA is confusing a subcontract and a contract delegating the act of ‘physical distribution’ to a third party. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The second plea, alleging breach of Article 167 TFEU and the implementing rules, including the Financial Regulation, and of points 3 and 4 of the call for proposals EACEA/21/12.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that there is a manifest error in the arguments contained in the contested decision. On this point, the applicant states that it is clear from the content of the contested decision that EACEA erroneously and arbitrarily characterised the contractual relationship between the applicant and Rai Cinema as being subcontractual in nature. It also emerges from that letter that EACEA is confusing a subcontract and a contract delegating the act of ‘physical distribution’ to a third party.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/43

---

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA

(Case T-692/13)

2014/C 45/74

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (Grassobbio (BG), Italy) (represented by: G. Greco, M. Muscardini and G. Carullo, lawyers)

Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | primarily: annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily: annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences;

| — | in the alternative: declare that there was neither any fraudulent subdivision of nor any intent to avoid the activity for which co-financing was provided and, accordingly, annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: declare that there was neither any fraudulent subdivision of nor any intent to avoid the activity for which co-financing was provided and, accordingly, annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences;

| — | in any event: recalculate the reduction in financing decided on by the Commission to an amount which is considered more appropriate in the light of the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event: recalculate the reduction in financing decided on by the Commission to an amount which is considered more appropriate in the light of the principle of proportionality;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is the same as in Case T-270/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA (OJ C 207 of 20 July 2013, p. 46).

It should be noted in this regard that, in relation to the present proceedings, both defendants have claimed that the action is inadmissible in so far as it is directed against a measure which, in their view, is not final.

According to the applicant, it has brought an action against the decision adopted by TEN-T EA on 23 October 2013 as a purely precautionary, defensive, measure in order to draw attention once more to the unlawfulness of the decision to reduce financing.

The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put forward in Case T-270/13.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)

(Case T-574/11) (1)

2014/C 45/75

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 2 December 2013 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)

(Case T-214/12) (1)

2014/C 45/76

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)

(Case T-217/12) (1)

2014/C 45/77

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Classeurs)

(Case T-508/12) (1)

2014/C 45/78

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)

(Case T-511/12) (1)

2014/C 45/79

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission

(Case T-153/13) (1)

2014/C 45/80

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/45

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission

(Case T-154/13) (1)

2014/C 45/81

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/45

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — European Space Imaging v Commission

(Case T-357/13) (1)

2014/C 45/82

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/45

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

(Case T-523/13) (1)

2014/C 45/83

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/45

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

(Case T-524/13) (1)

2014/C 45/84

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/46

---

Action brought on 4 October 2013 — ZZ a. o. v EEAS

(Case F-100/13)

2014/C 45/85

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the EEAS’s decision not to pay, from 1 January 2014, to officials assigned to Argentina, Chile, China (Hong Kong), Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan the allowance for living conditions anymore.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision MDR/C6/(2012) of the EEAS dated 19 December 2012 by which the AIPN has decided to eliminate the living conditions allowance for staff members based in the EU Delegations and Offices to Argentina, China (Hong Kong) Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision MDR/C6/(2012) of the EEAS dated 19 December 2012 by which the AIPN has decided to eliminate the living conditions allowance for staff members based in the EU Delegations and Offices to Argentina, China (Hong Kong) Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan;

| — | as a consequence, order payment of the living conditions allowances at a 15 % rate from 1 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, order payment of the living conditions allowances at a 15 % rate from 1 January 2014;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/46

---

Action brought on 25 October 2013 — ZZ v FRA

(Case F-106/13)

2014/C 45/86

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the FRA Director’s decision to impose a disciplinary penalty on the applicant in the form of a reprimand.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 20 February 2013 issuing a reprimand and, if necessary, the decision of 22 February 2013 confirming the reprimand in writing; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 20 February 2013 issuing a reprimand and, if necessary, the decision of 22 February 2013 confirming the reprimand in writing;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 17 July 2013, received on 18t July 2013, rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 17 July 2013, received on 18t July 2013, rejecting the complaint;

| — | grant the applicant adequate compensation for the moral damage caused by the gross illegality and irregularity of the administrative inquiry and of the decision to issue a reprimand. This moral damage is assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000,00; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applicant adequate compensation for the moral damage caused by the gross illegality and irregularity of the administrative inquiry and of the decision to issue a reprimand. This moral damage is assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000,00;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all costs.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/46

---

Action brought on 30 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-116/13)

2014/C 45/87

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme which applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, consequently, inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, consequently, inapplicable;

| — | Annul the decision of 18 June 2013 to increase the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into the service, as part of the transfer thereof into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, by application of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 18 June 2013 to increase the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into the service, as part of the transfer thereof into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, by application of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/47

---

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — ZZ v ERA

(Case F-120/13)

2014/C 45/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Railway Agency (ERA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary staff contract of the applicant.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision not to renew the temporary staff contract of the applicant within the Agency; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision not to renew the temporary staff contract of the applicant within the Agency;

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

—

Order the Agency to pay the costs.

---

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/47

---

Action brought on 23 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-126/13)

2014/C 45/89

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the PMO to pay the family allowances directly to the mother of the applicant’s daughter, with retroactive effect to 1 October 2012

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 21 May 2013 by which the PMO informs the applicant of its decision to pay the family allowances, including the household allowance, the dependent child allowance and the education allowance, directly to the mother of his daughter, retroactively from 1 October 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 21 May 2013 by which the PMO informs the applicant of its decision to pay the family allowances, including the household allowance, the dependent child allowance and the education allowance, directly to the mother of his daughter, retroactively from 1 October 2012;

| — | Annul the decision adopted on 23 September 2013 rejecting the applicant’s claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted on 23 September 2013 rejecting the applicant’s claim;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the applicant the entirely of the sums due in respect of family allowances unduly withheld since 1 October 2012 until the date of execution of the judgment to be give in this case, together with late-payment interest calculated at the rate of 4 % per annum from 1 October 2012 until payment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the applicant the entirely of the sums due in respect of family allowances unduly withheld since 1 October 2012 until the date of execution of the judgment to be give in this case, together with late-payment interest calculated at the rate of 4 % per annum from 1 October 2012 until payment in full;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---