# Official Journal C 225/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.225.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 225 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 563 August 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.225.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 225

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 563 August 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2013/C 225/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 215, 27.7.2013 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2013/C 225/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 215, 27.7.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 225/02 | Case C-383/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax legislation — Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad) | 2 |
| 2013/C 225/03 | Case C-512/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 91/440/EEC — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 2001/14/EC — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14 — Continued absence of financial balance — Articles 6(1) and 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440 — Absence of incentives for infrastructure managers — Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 — Calculation of the minimum access charge) | 2 |
| 2013/C 225/04 | Case C-569/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 94/22/EC — Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons — Non-discriminatory access) | 3 |
| 2013/C 225/05 | Case C-589/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny — Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Poland)) — Janina Wencel v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 10 — Old-age benefits — Habitual residence in two different Member States — A survivor’s pension received in one of those States and a retirement pension in the other — Withdrawal of one of those benefits — Recovery of benefits to which it is alleged the recipient was not entitled) | 3 |
| 2013/C 225/06 | Joined Cases C-197/11 and C-203/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele v Gouvernement flamand (C-197/11), All Projects & Developments NV and Others v Vlaamse Regering (C-203/11) (Fundamental freedoms — Restriction — Justification — State aid — Concept of public works contract — Land and buildings located in certain communes — National legislation making the transfer of land and buildings subject to the condition that there exists a sufficient connection between the prospective buyer or tenant and the target commune — Social obligation on subdividers and developers — Tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms) | 4 |
| 2013/C 225/07 | Case C-228/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act — Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant (wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung)) | 5 |
| 2013/C 225/08 | Case C-241/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/41/EC — Activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision — Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum) | 6 |
| 2013/C 225/09 | Case C-270/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/24/EC — Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260 TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Imposition of a lump sum payment) | 6 |
| 2013/C 225/10 | Case C-300/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)) — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 2004/38/EC — Decision refusing a citizen of the European Union admission to a Member State on public security grounds — Article 30(2) of the directive — Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the grounds of that decision — Disclosure contrary to the interests of State security — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection) | 7 |
| 2013/C 225/11 | Case C-386/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren (Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Definition of public contract — Article 1(2)(a) — Contract concluded between two local authorities — Transfer by one entity of the responsibility for cleaning certain of its buildings to another entity in return for financial compensation) | 7 |
| 2013/C 225/12 | Case C-397/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Erika Jőrös v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt. (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair — Consequences to be drawn by the national court from a finding that the term is unfair) | 8 |
| 2013/C 225/13 | Joined Cases C-457/11 to C-460/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera, formerly Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH (C-457/11), Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-458/11), and Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (C-459/11), Hewlett-Packard GmbH (C-460/11) v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) (Intellectual and industrial property — Copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction right — Fair compensation — Concept of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects — Consequences of the non-application of technological measures which are available to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts — Consequences of an express or implied authorisation to reproduce) | 9 |
| 2013/C 225/14 | Case C-485/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — National legislation — Electronic telecommunications operators — Requirement to pay an additional charge) | 9 |
| 2013/C 225/15 | Case C-488/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina de Man Garabito v Jahani BV (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Residential tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis — Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair — Penalty clause — Annulment of the clause) | 10 |
| 2013/C 225/16 | Case C-492/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Italy) — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA) (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Mediation in civil and commercial matters — Directive 2008/52/EC — National legislation providing for a compulsory mediation procedure — No need to adjudicate) | 11 |
| 2013/C 225/17 | Case C-508/11 P P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Eni SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Gravity of the infringement — Multiplier for deterrence — Actual impact on the market — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringements) | 11 |
| 2013/C 225/18 | Case C-511/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber manufactured by emulsion polymerisation — Fixing price targets, sharing clients by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information — Evidence — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Amount of the fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstance — Repeated infringement) | 12 |
| 2013/C 225/19 | Case C-528/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet (Asylum — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 3(2) — Discretion of the Member States — Role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — Obligation of Member States to request that Office to present its views — None) | 12 |
| 2013/C 225/20 | Case C-529/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 12 — Divorced spouse of a national of a Member State who has worked in another Member State — Adult child pursuing his studies in the host Member State — Right of residence of parent who is national of a non-Member State — Directive 2004/38/EC — Articles 16 to 18 — Right of permanent residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State — Legal residence — Residence based on Article 12 above) | 13 |
| 2013/C 225/21 | Case C-534/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Applicability to asylum seekers — Possibility of keeping a third-country national in detention after an application for asylum has been made) | 13 |
| 2013/C 225/22 | Case C-542/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Codirex Expeditie BV (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Goods in temporary storage — Non-Community goods — External Community transit procedure — Point at which a customs-approved treatment or use is assigned — Acceptance of the customs declaration — Release of the goods — Customs debt) | 14 |
| 2013/C 225/23 | Case C-568/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Sugar-based product consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and 35 % impurities resulting from the manufacturing process — Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 — Production refund on certain products used in the chemical industry — Community aid wrongly paid — Repayment — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations) | 15 |
| 2013/C 225/24 | Case C-575/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias (Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Profession of physiotherapist — Partial and limited recognition of professional qualifications — Article 49 TFEU) | 15 |
| 2013/C 225/25 | Case C-604/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 12 de Madrid — Spain) — Genil 48 SL, Comercial Hostelera de Grandes Vinos SL v Bankinter SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (Directive 2004/39/EC — Markets in financial instruments — Article 19 — Conduct of business obligations when providing investment services to clients — Investment advice — Other investment services — Obligation to assess the suitability or appropriateness of the service to be provided — Contractual consequences of non-compliance with that obligation — Investment service offered as part of a financial product — Interest-rate swap agreements to protect against the risk of variations of interest rates on financial products) | 16 |
| 2013/C 225/26 | Case C-615/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — European Commission v Ryanair Ltd (Appeal — Action for failure to act — Article 232 EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 20(2) — State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines — Complaint — Lack of a decision from the Commission) | 16 |
| 2013/C 225/27 | Joined Cases C-630/11 P to C-633/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — HGA Srl. and Others v European Commission (Appeals — Regional State aid — Aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia — New aid — Alteration to an existing aid scheme — Corrective decision — Possibility of adopting such a decision — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4(5), 7(6), 10(1), 13(2), 16 and 20(1) — Incentive effect of the aid — Protection of legitimate expectations) | 17 |
| 2013/C 225/28 | Case C-635/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC — Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies — Article 16(2)(a) and (b) — Company resulting from a cross-border merger — Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States — Participation rights — Failure to provide identical rights) | 17 |
| 2013/C 225/29 | Case C-648/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determining the Member State responsible — Unaccompanied minor — Successive applications for asylum lodged in two Member States — Absence of a member of the family of the minor in the territory of a Member State — Second paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No 343/2003 — Transfer of the minor to the Member State in which he lodged his first application — Compatibility — Child’s best interests — Article 24(2) of the Charter) | 18 |
| 2013/C 225/30 | Case C-651/11: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 5(8) — Concept of transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof — Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT) | 18 |
| 2013/C 225/31 | Case C-653/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) — Meaning of supply of services — Supply of advertising and loan broking services — Exemptions — Economic and commercial reality of the transactions — Abusive practices — Transactions with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage) | 19 |
| 2013/C 225/32 | Case C-663/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Products released for consumption in a Member State where the excise duty was paid — Same products transported to another Member State where the excise duty has also been paid — Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the first Member State — Refusal for not introducing the request before the goods were dispatched — Compatibility with European Union law) | 19 |
| 2013/C 225/33 | Case C-667/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna (Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Articles 13 and 14 — Imports of products originating in China — Anti-dumping duties — Circumvention — Re-consignment of goods via Malaysia — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Registration of imports — Recovery of anti-dumping duties — Retroactivity) | 20 |
| 2013/C 225/34 | Joined Cases C-671/11 to C-676/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (Viniflhor) v Société anonyme d’intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes (C-671/11 and C-672/11), Organisation de producteurs Les Cimes (C-673/11), Société Agroprovence (C-674/11), Regalp SA (C-675/11), Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM) (C-676/11) (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Period under scrutiny — Possibility of extending the period under scrutiny and adjusting the temporal parameters — Objective of effective supervision — Legal certainty) | 21 |
| 2013/C 225/35 | Case C-677/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Doux Élevage SNC, Coopérative agricole UKL-ARREE v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF) (Article 107(1) TFEU — State aid — Concept of State resources — Concept of imputability to the State — Inter-trade organisations in the agricultural sector — Recognised organisations — Common activities decided on by those organisations in the interests of trade — Financing by means of contributions introduced on a voluntary basis by those organisations — Administrative measure making those contributions compulsory for all traders in the agricultural industry affected) | 21 |
| 2013/C 225/36 | Case C-681/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. AG and Others (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Articles 5 and 23(2) — Intention-related or negligence-related conditions for imposing a fine — Impact of legal advice or of a decision of a national competition authority — Power of a national competition authority to find the infringement of European Union competition law without imposing a fine) | 22 |
| 2013/C 225/37 | Case C-3/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat OP 84 v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR) (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Scrutiny period — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties) | 23 |
| 2013/C 225/38 | Case C-7/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Nadežda Riežniece v Latvijas Republikas Zemkopības ministrija, Lauku atbalsta dienests (Social policy — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework Agreement on Parental Leave — Abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties — Assessment of a female worker who took parental leave as compared to workers who remained in active service — Dismissal at the end of parental leave — Indirect discrimination) | 23 |
| 2013/C 225/39 | Case C-20/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif, Luxembourg) — Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin, Joëlle Hodin v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Condition of residence in the Member State granting the assistance — Refusal to grant the aid to students, who are European Union citizens not residing in the Member State concerned, whose father or mother, a frontier worker, works in that Member State — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree — Whether appropriate — Proportionality) | 24 |
| 2013/C 225/40 | Case C-45/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS) v Radia Hadj Ahmed (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Scope ratione personae — Grant of family benefits to a third-country national with a right of residence in a Member State — Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 — Directive 2004/38/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Length-of-residence requirement) | 25 |
| 2013/C 225/41 | Case C-62/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9(1) — Concept of taxable person — Natural person — Taxable supply of a service — Occasional supply — Unconnected with a registered professional activity subject to VAT — Self-employed bailiff) | 26 |
| 2013/C 225/42 | Case C-70/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for methacrylates — Duration of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Statement of reasons — Unlimited jurisdiction — General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment — Proportionality of the fine) | 26 |
| 2013/C 225/43 | Case C-71/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Malta) — Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited v L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni (Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Articles 12 and 13 — Administrative charges and fees for rights of use — Charge applicable to mobile telephony operators — National legislation — Method of calculating the charge — Percentage of the costs paid by users) | 27 |
| 2013/C 225/44 | Case C-87/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg)) — Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration (Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement — Fundamental rights) | 27 |
| 2013/C 225/45 | Case C-93/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie — Razplashtatelna agentsia (Agriculture — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Common agricultural policy — Aid — Administrative law disputes — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — National criterion — Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 28 |
| 2013/C 225/46 | Case C-125/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Granada — Spain) — Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 199(1)(g) — Voluntary insolvency proceedings — Person liable for payment of tax — Liability of the person who is the recipient of certain transactions — Concept of compulsory sale procedure) | 28 |
| 2013/C 225/47 | Case C-142/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 — Cessation of the taxable economic activity — Removal of the taxable person from the VAT register by the tax authorities — Retention of goods on which the VAT became deductible — Taxable amount — Open market value or purchase value — Determination at the time of the transaction — Direct effect of Article 74) | 29 |
| 2013/C 225/48 | Case C-144/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Articles 6 and 17 — Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 24 — Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised — Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure) | 29 |
| 2013/C 225/49 | Case C-149/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission (Appeal — Plant-protection products — Diphenylamine — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Procedure for the assessment of active substances — Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex — Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007) | 30 |
| 2013/C 225/50 | Case C-155/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o. (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 44 and 47 — Place where taxable transactions are deemed to be carried out — Place of supply for tax purposes — Concept of supply of services connected with immovable property — Complex cross-border service relating to the storage of goods) | 30 |
| 2013/C 225/51 | Case C-169/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 66(a) to (c) — Transport and shipping services — Chargeability — Date on which payment is received and no later than 30 days from the date on which the services are supplied — Invoice issued earlier) | 31 |
| 2013/C 225/52 | Case C-183/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings) | 31 |
| 2013/C 225/53 | Case C-186/12: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Portugal) — Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez (Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries — Exclusion of parent companies having their seat in another Member State — No restriction) | 32 |
| 2013/C 225/54 | Case C-191/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Non-repayment of the entirety of value added tax unduly paid — National legislation precluding repayment of VAT because it has been passed on to a third party — Compensation in the form of aid covering a fraction of the non-deductible VAT — Unjust enrichment) | 32 |
| 2013/C 225/55 | Case C-193/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Designation of vulnerable zones — Excessive nitrate content — Eutrophication — Obligation of four-yearly revision) | 33 |
| 2013/C 225/56 | Case C-219/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 4(1) and (2) — Concept of economic activities — Deduction of input tax — Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling — Supply to the network — Remuneration — Electricity production lower than consumption) | 33 |
| 2013/C 225/57 | Case C-239/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings) | 34 |
| 2013/C 225/58 | Case C-259/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv v Rodopi-M 91 OOD (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Belated recording in the accounts and declaration of the cancellation of an invoice — Remedying of the omission — Payment of the tax — State budget — No harm suffered — Administrative penalty) | 34 |
| 2013/C 225/59 | Case C-269/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc. (Appeal — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission — Concept of interest in bringing proceedings — That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased) | 35 |
| 2013/C 225/60 | Case C-271/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge (Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Right to deduct input tax — Obligations of the taxable person — Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices — Omission of mandatory particulars — Refusal of the right to deduct — Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced — Correcting invoices — Right to refund of VAT — Principle of neutrality) | 35 |
| 2013/C 225/61 | Case C-287/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA (Appeal — State aid — Loan granted by the Italian Republic to the airline company Alitalia — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible — Sale of assets of Alitalia — Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Interested party — Admissibility — Serious difficulties — Competence — Duty to state reasons) | 36 |
| 2013/C 225/62 | Case C-320/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker (Approximation of laws — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 4(4)(g) — Trade marks — Conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a trade mark — Refusal of registration or invalidation — Concept of bad faith of the applicant — Whether the applicant knows of the existence of a foreign mark) | 36 |
| 2013/C 225/63 | Case C-342/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu — Portugal) — Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT) (Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2 — Concept of personal data — Articles 6 and 7 — Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate — Article 17 — Security of processing — Working time — Record of working time — Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions — Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation) | 37 |
| 2013/C 225/64 | Case C-345/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/91/EC — Energy performance of buildings — Article 7(1) and (2), Article 9, Article 10 and Article 15(1) — Incorrect transposition — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Directive 2010/31/EU — Article 29) | 38 |
| 2013/C 225/65 | Case C-168/13 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil constitutionnel — France) — Jeremy F v Premier ministre (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Speciality rule — Application for extension of the European arrest warrant on which the surrender was based or for onward surrender to another Member State — Decision of the judicial authority of the executing Member State to give consent — Appeal with suspensive effect — Whether permitted) | 38 |
| 2013/C 225/66 | Case C-229/10: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto — Portugal) — Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Civil liability of the insured person — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation) | 39 |
| 2013/C 225/67 | Case C-242/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA v European Commission, Portuguese Republic (Appeal — Articles 149 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Global grant for local development in Portugal — Reduction of financial assistance — No need to adjudicate — Manifest inadmissibility) | 39 |
| 2013/C 225/68 | Case C-362/11: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal)) — Serafim Gomes Oliveira v Lusitânia — Companhia de Seguros, SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Limitation of the right to compensation) | 40 |
| 2013/C 225/69 | Case C-413/11: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight — Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union) | 41 |
| 2013/C 225/70 | Case C-486/11: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2005/14/EC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation) | 41 |
| 2013/C 225/71 | Case C-564/11: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia and Others v Comune di Pavia (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) and (d) — Services — Study and technical and scientific consultancy for the purposes of drawing up the measures forming a municipal town and country planning programme — Contract concluded between two public entities, one of which is a university — Public entity capable of being classified as an economic operator) | 42 |
| 2013/C 225/72 | Case C-584/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Active substance trifluralin — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Decision 1999/468/EC — Article 5) | 42 |
| 2013/C 225/73 | Case C-14/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah v Three-N-Products Private Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Application for registration of the Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded) | 43 |
| 2013/C 225/74 | Case C-96/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Domingos Freitas, Maria Adilia Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation) | 43 |
| 2013/C 225/75 | Case C-260/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Suzuki Motor Corp. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark Swift GTi — Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI — Withdrawal of the opposition — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 44 |
| 2013/C 225/76 | Case C-268/12 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Novartis AG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ZYDUS — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ZIMBUS — Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal of OHIM) | 44 |
| 2013/C 225/77 | Case C-294/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — You Q BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Apple Corps Ltd (Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element BEATLE — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks containing the word elements BEATLES and THE BEATLES — Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 45 |
| 2013/C 225/78 | Case C-324/12: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Novontech-Zala kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Opposition lodged out of time — Article 20 — Review in exceptional cases — No extraordinary or exceptional circumstances) | 45 |
| 2013/C 225/79 | Case C-341/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Mizuno KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community trade mark — Figurative mark including the letter G and the two symbols of gender — Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the letter G and the symbol + — Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal) | 46 |
| 2013/C 225/80 | Case C-346/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lactimilk SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Community word mark MILRAM — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks RAM) | 46 |
| 2013/C 225/81 | Case C-352/12: Order of the Court of 20 June 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo (Italy)) — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo and Comune di Barisciano (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) and (d) — Services — Support activities relating to the drawing up of a reconstruction plan for certain parts of the territory of a municipality damaged by an earthquake — Contract concluded between two public entities, one a university — Public entity likely to be classified as an economic operator — Extraordinary circumstances) | 47 |
| 2013/C 225/82 | Case C-354/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — Asa sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Word mark FEMIFERAL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier word and figurative mark feminatal) | 47 |
| 2013/C 225/83 | Case C-357/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Harald Wohlfahrt v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) — Word sign Kindertraum — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Kinder) | 48 |
| 2013/C 225/84 | Case C-368/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Recovery of aid — Assessment of the validity of an EU act — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility) | 48 |
| 2013/C 225/85 | Case C-379/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Arav Holding Srl v H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark H.EICH — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier figurative mark H- SILVIAN HEACH — Refusal of registration) | 48 |
| 2013/C 225/86 | Case C-381/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — I Marchi Italiani Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Osra SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Community mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 — Earlier national mark BASILE — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 53(2) — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1) of that regulation — Likelihood of confusion) | 49 |
| 2013/C 225/87 | Case C-393/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark HELLIM — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark HALLOUMI — Opposition dismissed) | 49 |
| 2013/C 225/88 | Case C-397/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible — No failure to state reasons — Imprecise ground of appeal — Ground of appeal seeking reconsideration of the application at first instance) | 50 |
| 2013/C 225/89 | Case C-415/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Bianca Brandes v Land Niedersachsen (Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Framework agreement on part-time work — Full-time worker having been unable to exercise her entitlement to paid annual leave during the reference period — Move of that worker to a scheme of part-time work — National provision or practice providing for a reduction in the number of days of paid leave previously accumulated thereby to be in proportion to the number of days of part-time work per week) | 50 |
| 2013/C 225/90 | Case C-418/12 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia v European Commission (Appeal — Public service contracts — Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds — Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the appellant — Refusal of the Commission to open an infringement or financial adjustment procedure against Romania) | 51 |
| 2013/C 225/91 | Case C-436/12 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v European Commission, Italian Republic (Appeal — State aid — Aid to undertakings established in the territory of Venice and Chioggia) | 51 |
| 2013/C 225/92 | Case C-468/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza — Italy) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Ciesse srl (Request for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Articles 53(2), 93(a), and 99 — Directive 200817/EC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Article 5(1)(c) — Scope — Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture) | 52 |
| 2013/C 225/93 | Case C-542/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fidenato Giorgio (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2002/53/EC — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered in the common catalogue — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 20 — Existing products — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 26a — Measures to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms) | 52 |
| 2013/C 225/94 | Case C-566/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Erusalim Baleanu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-311/12: Baleanu v Commission | 53 |
| 2013/C 225/95 | Case C-567/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Adrian Barliba against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-312/12: Barliba v Commission | 53 |
| 2013/C 225/96 | Case C-568/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Doru Cristian Ioanovici against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-313/12: Ioanovici v Commission | 53 |
| 2013/C 225/97 | Case C-569/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Emil Micsunescu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12: Micsunescu v Commission | 53 |
| 2013/C 225/98 | Case C-570/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Alexandru Octavian Concal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-320/12: Concal v Commission | 53 |
| 2013/C 225/99 | Case C-14/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Gena Ivanova Cholakova v Osmo Rayonno Upravlienie pri Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti (Request for a preliminary ruling — Articles 21(1) TFEU, 67 TFEU and 72 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National rules permitting a person to be detained in order to establish his identity — Lack of connection with European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 54 |
| 2013/C 225/00 | Case C-73/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy)) — T (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 54 |
| 2013/C 225/01 | Case C-106/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of European Union law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 54 |
| 2013/C 225/02 | Case C-444/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Hardimpex Kft (in liquidation) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága | 55 |
| 2013/C 225/03 | Case C-465/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 October 2012 by Plamen Simov against the order of the General Court delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Plamen Simov v European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria | 55 |
| 2013/C 225/04 | Case C-471/12 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. against the judgment delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-587/10 Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. v Commission | 55 |
| 2013/C 225/05 | Case C-535/12 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Rafael Faet Oltra against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Rafael Faet Oltra v European Ombudsman | 56 |
| 2013/C 225/06 | Joined Cases C-436/11 and C-437/11: Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer (C-436/11), Ekkerhard Schauβ (C-437/11) v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA (C-436/11), Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (C-437/11) | 56 |
| 2013/C 225/07 | Case C-594/11: Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2013 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA | 56 |
| 2013/C 225/08 | Case C-29/12: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 12 June 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany | 56 |
| 2013/C 225/09 | Case C-76/12: Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v French Republic | 56 |
| 2013/C 225/10 | Case C-126/12: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Edgar Brück v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse | 56 |
| 2013/C 225/11 | Case C-146/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany supported by the Slovak Republic | 56 |
| 2013/C 225/12 | Case C-212/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helmut Butz, Christel Bachmann-Butz, Frederike Butz v Société Air France SA | 57 |
| 2013/C 225/13 | Case C-213/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A. | 57 |
| 2013/C 225/14 | Case C-227/12: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, trading under the name ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu | 57 |
| 2013/C 225/15 | Case C-253/12: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 27 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — JS v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (The Czech social security administration) | 57 |
| 2013/C 225/16 | Case C-308/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 57 |
| 2013/C 225/17 | Case C-330/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 57 |
| 2013/C 225/18 | Case C-331/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 57 |
| 2013/C 225/19 | Case C-392/12: Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2013 — Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blueshore Management SA | 58 |
| 2013/C 225/20 | Case C-406/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia | 58 |
| 2013/C 225/21 | Case C-407/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia | 58 |
| 2013/C 225/22 | Case C-416/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikom Deutsche Telekabel GmbH previously Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH | 58 |
| 2013/C 225/23 | Case C-432/12 P: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vermop Salmon GmbH | 58 |
| 2013/C 225/24 | Case C-496/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s. | 58 |
| 2013/C 225/25 | Case C-513/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany | 58 |
| 2013/C 225/26 | Case C-538/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia | 58 |
| 2013/C 225/27 | Case C-545/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus | 59 |
| 2013/C 225/28 | Case C-572/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands | 59 |
| 2013/C 225/29 | Case C-585/12: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2013 — Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV v European Commission | 59 |
| 2013/C 225/30 | Case C-618/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Société Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances | 59 |
| 2013/C 225/31 | Case C-68/13: Order of the President of the Court of 28 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Markus Weiss v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 59 |
| 2013/C 225/32 | Case C-158/13: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie | 59 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 225/33 | Case T-267/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure excluded from financing — Excessive delay in the assessment by the Commission of the communications sent pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 — Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable time) | 60 |
| 2013/C 225/34 | Case T-404/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Fluorsid and Minmet v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — World market in aluminium fluoride — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Out of time — Inadmissibility — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Evidence of the infringement — Rights of defence — Definition of the relevant market — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — 2006 Guidelines on fines) | 60 |
| 2013/C 225/35 | Case T-405/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Spar Österreichische Warenhandels v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Markets for everyday consumer goods — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Commitments — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Duty to state reasons) | 61 |
| 2013/C 225/36 | Case T-406/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — ICF v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — World market in aluminium fluoride — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Evidence of the infringement — Rights of defence — Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on fines — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement) | 61 |
| 2013/C 225/37 | Case T-280/09: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Morte Navarro v Parliament (Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action on the petition — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union) | 61 |
| 2013/C 225/38 | Case T-509/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission (Fisheries — Financial contribution for the implementation of control and surveillance systems — Decision not to reimburse expenditure incurred for the purchase of two Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV) — Article 296 EC — Directive 93/36/EEC — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons) | 62 |
| 2013/C 225/39 | Case T-214/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DIVINUS — Earlier national figurative mark MOSELLAND Divinum — Existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier right — Proof) | 62 |
| 2013/C 225/40 | Case T-218/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — DHL International v OHIM — Service Point Solutions (SERVICEPOINT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SERVICEPOINT — Earlier Community marks ServicePoint and earlier national marks — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 63 |
| 2013/C 225/41 | Case T-384/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Projects concerning water supply to settlements in the Guadiana river basin in the Andévalo area, drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir river basin and water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga — Partial withdrawal of financial assistance — Public works and services contracts — Work — Split of the procurement — Determination of the financial corrections — Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation No 1164/94 — Proportionality) | 63 |
| 2013/C 225/42 | Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Nencini v Parliament (Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Travel and parliamentary assistance expenses — Recovery of undue payments — Limitation period — Reasonable period — Rights of the defence — Principle of audi alteram partem — Proportionality) | 64 |
| 2013/C 225/43 | Joined Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Anicav and Others v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector — Actions for annulment — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Processed fruit and vegetables — Operational funds and operational programmes — Funding of (non-)genuine processing activities) | 64 |
| 2013/C 225/44 | Case T-2/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred in connection with the POSEI measure (financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007)) | 65 |
| 2013/C 225/45 | Case T-65/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Recombined Dairy System v Commission (Customs union — Import of lactoglobulin concentrates from New Zealand — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Request for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) | 66 |
| 2013/C 225/46 | Case T-68/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Kastenholz v OHIM — Qwatchme (Watch dials) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing watch dials — Earlier unregistered designs — Ground for invalidity — Novelty — Articles 4, 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Individual character — Different overall impression — Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Earlier copyright — Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 66 |
| 2013/C 225/47 | Case T-74/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) — Decision rejecting a complaint — No European Union interest) | 66 |
| 2013/C 225/48 | Case T-93/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India for the purposes of concluding a free trade agreement — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations — Documents which have entered the public domain — Non-imposition of a restriction on disclosure of documents) | 67 |
| 2013/C 225/49 | Case T-178/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Voss of Norway v OHIM — Nordic Spirit (Three-dimensional shape of a bottle) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the shape of a bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal) | 67 |
| 2013/C 225/50 | Case T-187/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Trabelsi and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Action for damages — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility) | 68 |
| 2013/C 225/51 | Case T-188/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Chiboub v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — No legal basis) | 68 |
| 2013/C 225/52 | Case T-200/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Al Matri v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — No legal basis) | 69 |
| 2013/C 225/53 | Case T-219/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark AGIPA — Earlier national word mark AGIPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Comparison of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 69 |
| 2013/C 225/54 | Case T-248/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — International Engine Intellectual Property Company v OHIM (PURE POWER) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PURE POWER — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 70 |
| 2013/C 225/55 | Case T-279/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (Agriculture — Exceptional measures concerning the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market and opening a tariff quota — Action for annulment — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility — Action for damages) | 70 |
| 2013/C 225/56 | Case T-396/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ultrafilter international — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Abuse of rights) | 71 |
| 2013/C 225/57 | Case T-505/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2013 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark dialdi — Earlier Community word mark ALDI — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 71 |
| 2013/C 225/58 | Case T-514/11: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BETWIN — Earlier Community figurative mark b’Twin — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 72 |
| 2013/C 225/59 | Case T-515/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 72 |
| 2013/C 225/60 | Case T-522/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (APLI-AGIPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark APLI-AGIPA — Earlier national word mark AGIPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Comparison of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 73 |
| 2013/C 225/61 | Case T-580/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark NICORONO — Earlier Community word mark NICORETTE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 73 |
| 2013/C 225/62 | Case T-598/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index) (Community Trade mark — Application for Community word mark Lean Performance Index — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 73 |
| 2013/C 225/63 | Case T-608/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer (Instrument for writing) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an instrument for writing — Earlier national figurative and three-dimensional trade marks — Ground for invalidity — Use in the Community design of an earlier sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision) | 74 |
| 2013/C 225/64 | Case T-636/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — Hostel drap v OHIM — Aznar Textil (MY drap) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MY drap — Earlier Community figurative mark BON DRAP — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 74 |
| 2013/C 225/65 | Case T-645/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Heath v ECB (Appeal — Civil Service Tribunal — Employees of the ECB — Pensions — Annual increase — Rate of increase for 2010 — Retroactivity — Right to collective bargaining) | 74 |
| 2013/C 225/66 | Case T-668/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament (Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Community procurement procedure — Transport of Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during sessions at Strasbourg — Rejection of the bid of a tenderer — Annulment by the General Court of the rejection decision — Loss allegedly suffered following the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid — Action for damages) | 75 |
| 2013/C 225/67 | Case T-89/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark R — Earlier national figurative mark R — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 75 |
| 2013/C 225/68 | Case T-115/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Roca — Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 75 |
| 2013/C 225/69 | Case T-126/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Inspired by efficiency — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 76 |
| 2013/C 225/70 | Case T-128/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — HTTS v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment) | 76 |
| 2013/C 225/71 | Case T-172/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Be Light — Earlier Community mark BECK’s — relative ground for refusal — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 77 |
| 2013/C 225/72 | Case T-367/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark MOL Blue Card — Earlier Community word marks BLUE, BLUE BBVA and TARJETA BLUE BBVA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 77 |
| 2013/C 225/73 | Case T-411/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET — Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 78 |
| 2013/C 225/74 | Case T-322/09: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Al-Faqih and MIRA v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — No need to adjudicate) | 78 |
| 2013/C 225/75 | Case T-69/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Zavvar v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate) | 79 |
| 2013/C 225/76 | Case T-70/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Divandari v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Plea of inadmissibility — Lis pendens — Plea of illegality — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate) | 79 |
| 2013/C 225/77 | Case T-71/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Meskarian v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate) | 80 |
| 2013/C 225/78 | Case T-213/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — Helicopter support to the EULEX Kosovo mission — Rejection of the bid of a tenderer — No legal capacity to be a defendant — Inadmissibility) | 80 |
| 2013/C 225/79 | Case T-398/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 81 |
| 2013/C 225/80 | Case T-399/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 81 |
| 2013/C 225/81 | Case T-413/12: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Post Invest Europe Sàrl v European Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to De Post-La Poste (now bpost) — Compensation for public service costs — Decision declaring the aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Offers of further evidence) | 81 |
| 2013/C 225/82 | Case T-165/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2013 — Talanton v Commission (Interim relief — Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Repayment of sums paid — Application for stay of execution — No urgency) | 82 |
| 2013/C 225/83 | Case T-201/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Rubinum v Commission (Interim relief — Authorisation of feed additives — Regulation on the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Weighing up of interests) | 82 |
| 2013/C 225/84 | Case T-55/09: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Daniel Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Dabiel Swarovski Privat) | 82 |
| 2013/C 225/85 | Case T-277/09: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Trasys v Commission | 82 |
| 2013/C 225/86 | Case T-45/11: Order of the General Court of 27 May 2013 — Italy v Commission | 83 |
| 2013/C 225/87 | Case T-94/11: Order of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — AU Optronics v Commission | 83 |
| 2013/C 225/88 | Case T-407/11: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — SRF v Council | 83 |
| 2013/C 225/89 | Case T-459/11: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Barloworld v Commission | 83 |
| 2013/C 225/90 | Case T-550/12: Order of the General Court of 3 June 2013 — bachmaier v OHIM — (oto-soft) | 83 |
| 2013/C 225/91 | Case T-13/13: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — MasterCard International v OHIM — Nehra (surfpin) | 83 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2013/C 225/92 | Case F-56/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading) | 84 |
| 2013/C 225/93 | Case F-86/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions (Civil Service — Officials — Invalidity pension — Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise that invalidity arose from an occupational disease) | 84 |
| 2013/C 225/94 | Case F-88/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — BX v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition EPSO/AD/148/09 — Failure to include the applicant in the reserve list) | 84 |
| 2013/C 225/95 | Case F-116/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Vacca v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/207/11 — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Admission tests — Cancellation of questions — Information for candidates) | 85 |
| 2013/C 225/96 | Case F-44/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days — Application received by post within the following ten days — Applications not the same — Action out of time) | 85 |
| 2013/C 225/97 | Case F-67/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Annulment of the Commission’s decision — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal — Damage arising as a result of non-compliance — Conditions — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law) | 85 |
| 2013/C 225/98 | Case F-1/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 April 2013 — Andersen v Court of Auditors (Civil service — Officials — Retirement on grounds of invalidity — Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 86 |
| 2013/C 225/99 | Case F-4/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period prescribed for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Application lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None) | 86 |
| 2013/C 225/00 | Case F-54/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2013 — Carosi v Commission | 86 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 225/02

Case C-383/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax legislation — Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad)

2

2013/C 225/03

Case C-512/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 91/440/EEC — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 2001/14/EC — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14 — Continued absence of financial balance — Articles 6(1) and 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440 — Absence of incentives for infrastructure managers — Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 — Calculation of the minimum access charge)

2

2013/C 225/04

Case C-569/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 94/22/EC — Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons — Non-discriminatory access)

3

2013/C 225/05

Case C-589/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny — Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Poland)) — Janina Wencel v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 10 — Old-age benefits — Habitual residence in two different Member States — A survivor’s pension received in one of those States and a retirement pension in the other — Withdrawal of one of those benefits — Recovery of benefits to which it is alleged the recipient was not entitled)

3

2013/C 225/06

Joined Cases C-197/11 and C-203/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele v Gouvernement flamand (C-197/11), All Projects & Developments NV and Others v Vlaamse Regering (C-203/11) (Fundamental freedoms — Restriction — Justification — State aid — Concept of public works contract — Land and buildings located in certain communes — National legislation making the transfer of land and buildings subject to the condition that there exists a sufficient connection between the prospective buyer or tenant and the target commune — Social obligation on subdividers and developers — Tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms)

4

2013/C 225/07

Case C-228/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act — Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant (wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung))

5

2013/C 225/08

Case C-241/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/41/EC — Activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision — Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum)

6

2013/C 225/09

Case C-270/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/24/EC — Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260 TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Imposition of a lump sum payment)

6

2013/C 225/10

Case C-300/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)) — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 2004/38/EC — Decision refusing a citizen of the European Union admission to a Member State on public security grounds — Article 30(2) of the directive — Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the grounds of that decision — Disclosure contrary to the interests of State security — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

7

2013/C 225/11

Case C-386/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren (Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Definition of public contract — Article 1(2)(a) — Contract concluded between two local authorities — Transfer by one entity of the responsibility for cleaning certain of its buildings to another entity in return for financial compensation)

7

2013/C 225/12

Case C-397/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Erika Jőrös v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt. (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair — Consequences to be drawn by the national court from a finding that the term is unfair)

8

2013/C 225/13

Joined Cases C-457/11 to C-460/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera, formerly Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH (C-457/11), Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-458/11), and Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (C-459/11), Hewlett-Packard GmbH (C-460/11) v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) (Intellectual and industrial property — Copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction right — Fair compensation — Concept of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects — Consequences of the non-application of technological measures which are available to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts — Consequences of an express or implied authorisation to reproduce)

9

2013/C 225/14

Case C-485/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — National legislation — Electronic telecommunications operators — Requirement to pay an additional charge)

9

2013/C 225/15

Case C-488/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina de Man Garabito v Jahani BV (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Residential tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis — Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair — Penalty clause — Annulment of the clause)

10

2013/C 225/16

Case C-492/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Italy) — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA) (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Mediation in civil and commercial matters — Directive 2008/52/EC — National legislation providing for a compulsory mediation procedure — No need to adjudicate)

11

2013/C 225/17

Case C-508/11 P P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Eni SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Gravity of the infringement — Multiplier for deterrence — Actual impact on the market — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringements)

11

2013/C 225/18

Case C-511/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber manufactured by emulsion polymerisation — Fixing price targets, sharing clients by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information — Evidence — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Amount of the fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstance — Repeated infringement)

12

2013/C 225/19

Case C-528/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet (Asylum — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 3(2) — Discretion of the Member States — Role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — Obligation of Member States to request that Office to present its views — None)

12

2013/C 225/20

Case C-529/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 12 — Divorced spouse of a national of a Member State who has worked in another Member State — Adult child pursuing his studies in the host Member State — Right of residence of parent who is national of a non-Member State — Directive 2004/38/EC — Articles 16 to 18 — Right of permanent residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State — Legal residence — Residence based on Article 12 above)

13

2013/C 225/21

Case C-534/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Applicability to asylum seekers — Possibility of keeping a third-country national in detention after an application for asylum has been made)

13

2013/C 225/22

Case C-542/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Codirex Expeditie BV (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Goods in temporary storage — Non-Community goods — External Community transit procedure — Point at which a customs-approved treatment or use is assigned — Acceptance of the customs declaration — Release of the goods — Customs debt)

14

2013/C 225/23

Case C-568/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Sugar-based product consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and 35 % impurities resulting from the manufacturing process — Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 — Production refund on certain products used in the chemical industry — Community aid wrongly paid — Repayment — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

15

2013/C 225/24

Case C-575/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias (Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Profession of physiotherapist — Partial and limited recognition of professional qualifications — Article 49 TFEU)

15

2013/C 225/25

Case C-604/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 12 de Madrid — Spain) — Genil 48 SL, Comercial Hostelera de Grandes Vinos SL v Bankinter SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (Directive 2004/39/EC — Markets in financial instruments — Article 19 — Conduct of business obligations when providing investment services to clients — Investment advice — Other investment services — Obligation to assess the suitability or appropriateness of the service to be provided — Contractual consequences of non-compliance with that obligation — Investment service offered as part of a financial product — Interest-rate swap agreements to protect against the risk of variations of interest rates on financial products)

o

16

2013/C 225/26

Case C-615/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — European Commission v Ryanair Ltd (Appeal — Action for failure to act — Article 232 EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 20(2) — State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines — Complaint — Lack of a decision from the Commission)

16

2013/C 225/27

Joined Cases C-630/11 P to C-633/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — HGA Srl. and Others v European Commission (Appeals — Regional State aid — Aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia — New aid — Alteration to an existing aid scheme — Corrective decision — Possibility of adopting such a decision — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4(5), 7(6), 10(1), 13(2), 16 and 20(1) — Incentive effect of the aid — Protection of legitimate expectations)

17

2013/C 225/28

Case C-635/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC — Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies — Article 16(2)(a) and (b) — Company resulting from a cross-border merger — Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States — Participation rights — Failure to provide identical rights)

17

2013/C 225/29

Case C-648/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determining the Member State responsible — Unaccompanied minor — Successive applications for asylum lodged in two Member States — Absence of a member of the family of the minor in the territory of a Member State — Second paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No 343/2003 — Transfer of the minor to the Member State in which he lodged his first application — Compatibility — Child’s best interests — Article 24(2) of the Charter)

18

2013/C 225/30

Case C-651/11: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 5(8) — Concept of transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof — Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT)

18

2013/C 225/31

Case C-653/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) — Meaning of supply of services — Supply of advertising and loan broking services — Exemptions — Economic and commercial reality of the transactions — Abusive practices — Transactions with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage)

19

2013/C 225/32

Case C-663/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Products released for consumption in a Member State where the excise duty was paid — Same products transported to another Member State where the excise duty has also been paid — Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the first Member State — Refusal for not introducing the request before the goods were dispatched — Compatibility with European Union law)

19

2013/C 225/33

Case C-667/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna (Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Articles 13 and 14 — Imports of products originating in China — Anti-dumping duties — Circumvention — Re-consignment of goods via Malaysia — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Registration of imports — Recovery of anti-dumping duties — Retroactivity)

20

2013/C 225/34

Joined Cases C-671/11 to C-676/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (Viniflhor) v Société anonyme d’intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes (C-671/11 and C-672/11), Organisation de producteurs Les Cimes (C-673/11), Société Agroprovence (C-674/11), Regalp SA (C-675/11), Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM) (C-676/11) (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Period under scrutiny — Possibility of extending the period under scrutiny and adjusting the temporal parameters — Objective of effective supervision — Legal certainty)

21

2013/C 225/35

Case C-677/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Doux Élevage SNC, Coopérative agricole UKL-ARREE v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF) (Article 107(1) TFEU — State aid — Concept of State resources — Concept of imputability to the State — Inter-trade organisations in the agricultural sector — Recognised organisations — Common activities decided on by those organisations in the interests of trade — Financing by means of contributions introduced on a voluntary basis by those organisations — Administrative measure making those contributions compulsory for all traders in the agricultural industry affected)

21

2013/C 225/36

Case C-681/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. AG and Others (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Articles 5 and 23(2) — Intention-related or negligence-related conditions for imposing a fine — Impact of legal advice or of a decision of a national competition authority — Power of a national competition authority to find the infringement of European Union competition law without imposing a fine)

22

2013/C 225/37

Case C-3/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat OP 84 v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR) (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Scrutiny period — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties)

23

2013/C 225/38

Case C-7/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Nadežda Riežniece v Latvijas Republikas Zemkopības ministrija, Lauku atbalsta dienests (Social policy — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework Agreement on Parental Leave — Abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties — Assessment of a female worker who took parental leave as compared to workers who remained in active service — Dismissal at the end of parental leave — Indirect discrimination)

23

2013/C 225/39

Case C-20/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif, Luxembourg) — Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin, Joëlle Hodin v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Condition of residence in the Member State granting the assistance — Refusal to grant the aid to students, who are European Union citizens not residing in the Member State concerned, whose father or mother, a frontier worker, works in that Member State — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree — Whether appropriate — Proportionality)

24

2013/C 225/40

Case C-45/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS) v Radia Hadj Ahmed (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Scope ratione personae — Grant of family benefits to a third-country national with a right of residence in a Member State — Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 — Directive 2004/38/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Length-of-residence requirement)

25

2013/C 225/41

Case C-62/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9(1) — Concept of taxable person — Natural person — Taxable supply of a service — Occasional supply — Unconnected with a registered professional activity subject to VAT — Self-employed bailiff)

26

2013/C 225/42

Case C-70/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for methacrylates — Duration of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Statement of reasons — Unlimited jurisdiction — General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment — Proportionality of the fine)

26

2013/C 225/43

Case C-71/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Malta) — Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited v L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni (Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Articles 12 and 13 — Administrative charges and fees for rights of use — Charge applicable to mobile telephony operators — National legislation — Method of calculating the charge — Percentage of the costs paid by users)

27

2013/C 225/44

Case C-87/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg)) — Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration (Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement — Fundamental rights)

27

2013/C 225/45

Case C-93/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie — Razplashtatelna agentsia (Agriculture — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Common agricultural policy — Aid — Administrative law disputes — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — National criterion — Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

28

2013/C 225/46

Case C-125/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Granada — Spain) — Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 199(1)(g) — Voluntary insolvency proceedings — Person liable for payment of tax — Liability of the person who is the recipient of certain transactions — Concept of compulsory sale procedure)

o

28

2013/C 225/47

Case C-142/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 — Cessation of the taxable economic activity — Removal of the taxable person from the VAT register by the tax authorities — Retention of goods on which the VAT became deductible — Taxable amount — Open market value or purchase value — Determination at the time of the transaction — Direct effect of Article 74)

29

2013/C 225/48

Case C-144/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Articles 6 and 17 — Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 24 — Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised — Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)

29

2013/C 225/49

Case C-149/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission (Appeal — Plant-protection products — Diphenylamine — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Procedure for the assessment of active substances — Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex — Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)

30

2013/C 225/50

Case C-155/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o. (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 44 and 47 — Place where taxable transactions are deemed to be carried out — Place of supply for tax purposes — Concept of supply of services connected with immovable property — Complex cross-border service relating to the storage of goods)

30

2013/C 225/51

Case C-169/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 66(a) to (c) — Transport and shipping services — Chargeability — Date on which payment is received and no later than 30 days from the date on which the services are supplied — Invoice issued earlier)

31

2013/C 225/52

Case C-183/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings)

31

2013/C 225/53

Case C-186/12: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Portugal) — Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez (Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries — Exclusion of parent companies having their seat in another Member State — No restriction)

32

2013/C 225/54

Case C-191/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Non-repayment of the entirety of value added tax unduly paid — National legislation precluding repayment of VAT because it has been passed on to a third party — Compensation in the form of aid covering a fraction of the non-deductible VAT — Unjust enrichment)

32

2013/C 225/55

Case C-193/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Designation of vulnerable zones — Excessive nitrate content — Eutrophication — Obligation of four-yearly revision)

33

2013/C 225/56

Case C-219/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 4(1) and (2) — Concept of economic activities — Deduction of input tax — Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling — Supply to the network — Remuneration — Electricity production lower than consumption)

33

2013/C 225/57

Case C-239/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings)

34

2013/C 225/58

Case C-259/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv v Rodopi-M 91 OOD (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Belated recording in the accounts and declaration of the cancellation of an invoice — Remedying of the omission — Payment of the tax — State budget — No harm suffered — Administrative penalty)

34

2013/C 225/59

Case C-269/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc. (Appeal — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission — Concept of interest in bringing proceedings — That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased)

35

2013/C 225/60

Case C-271/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge (Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Right to deduct input tax — Obligations of the taxable person — Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices — Omission of mandatory particulars — Refusal of the right to deduct — Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced — Correcting invoices — Right to refund of VAT — Principle of neutrality)

35

2013/C 225/61

Case C-287/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA (Appeal — State aid — Loan granted by the Italian Republic to the airline company Alitalia — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible — Sale of assets of Alitalia — Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Interested party — Admissibility — Serious difficulties — Competence — Duty to state reasons)

36

2013/C 225/62

Case C-320/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker (Approximation of laws — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 4(4)(g) — Trade marks — Conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a trade mark — Refusal of registration or invalidation — Concept of bad faith of the applicant — Whether the applicant knows of the existence of a foreign mark)

36

2013/C 225/63

Case C-342/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu — Portugal) — Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT) (Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2 — Concept of personal data — Articles 6 and 7 — Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate — Article 17 — Security of processing — Working time — Record of working time — Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions — Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation)

37

2013/C 225/64

Case C-345/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/91/EC — Energy performance of buildings — Article 7(1) and (2), Article 9, Article 10 and Article 15(1) — Incorrect transposition — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Directive 2010/31/EU — Article 29)

38

2013/C 225/65

Case C-168/13 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil constitutionnel — France) — Jeremy F v Premier ministre (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Speciality rule — Application for extension of the European arrest warrant on which the surrender was based or for onward surrender to another Member State — Decision of the judicial authority of the executing Member State to give consent — Appeal with suspensive effect — Whether permitted)

38

2013/C 225/66

Case C-229/10: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto — Portugal) — Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Civil liability of the insured person — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

39

2013/C 225/67

Case C-242/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA v European Commission, Portuguese Republic (Appeal — Articles 149 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Global grant for local development in Portugal — Reduction of financial assistance — No need to adjudicate — Manifest inadmissibility)

39

2013/C 225/68

Case C-362/11: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal)) — Serafim Gomes Oliveira v Lusitânia — Companhia de Seguros, SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Limitation of the right to compensation)

40

2013/C 225/69

Case C-413/11: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight — Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union)

41

2013/C 225/70

Case C-486/11: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2005/14/EC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

41

2013/C 225/71

Case C-564/11: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia and Others v Comune di Pavia (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) and (d) — Services — Study and technical and scientific consultancy for the purposes of drawing up the measures forming a municipal town and country planning programme — Contract concluded between two public entities, one of which is a university — Public entity capable of being classified as an economic operator)

42

2013/C 225/72

Case C-584/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Active substance trifluralin — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Decision 1999/468/EC — Article 5)

42

2013/C 225/73

Case C-14/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah v Three-N-Products Private Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Application for registration of the Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

43

2013/C 225/74

Case C-96/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Domingos Freitas, Maria Adilia Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

43

2013/C 225/75

Case C-260/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Suzuki Motor Corp. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark Swift GTi — Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI — Withdrawal of the opposition — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

44

2013/C 225/76

Case C-268/12 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Novartis AG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ZYDUS — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ZIMBUS — Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

44

2013/C 225/77

Case C-294/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — You Q BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Apple Corps Ltd (Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element BEATLE — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks containing the word elements BEATLES and THE BEATLES — Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

45

2013/C 225/78

Case C-324/12: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Novontech-Zala kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Opposition lodged out of time — Article 20 — Review in exceptional cases — No extraordinary or exceptional circumstances)

45

2013/C 225/79

Case C-341/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Mizuno KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community trade mark — Figurative mark including the letter G and the two symbols of gender — Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the letter G and the symbol + — Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal)

46

2013/C 225/80

Case C-346/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lactimilk SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Community word mark MILRAM — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks RAM)

46

2013/C 225/81

Case C-352/12: Order of the Court of 20 June 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo (Italy)) — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo and Comune di Barisciano (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) and (d) — Services — Support activities relating to the drawing up of a reconstruction plan for certain parts of the territory of a municipality damaged by an earthquake — Contract concluded between two public entities, one a university — Public entity likely to be classified as an economic operator — Extraordinary circumstances)

47

2013/C 225/82

Case C-354/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — Asa sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Word mark FEMIFERAL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier word and figurative mark feminatal)

47

2013/C 225/83

Case C-357/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Harald Wohlfahrt v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) — Word sign Kindertraum — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Kinder)

48

2013/C 225/84

Case C-368/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Recovery of aid — Assessment of the validity of an EU act — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

48

2013/C 225/85

Case C-379/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Arav Holding Srl v H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark H.EICH — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier figurative mark H- SILVIAN HEACH — Refusal of registration)

48

2013/C 225/86

Case C-381/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — I Marchi Italiani Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Osra SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Community mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 — Earlier national mark BASILE — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 53(2) — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1) of that regulation — Likelihood of confusion)

49

2013/C 225/87

Case C-393/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark HELLIM — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark HALLOUMI — Opposition dismissed)

49

2013/C 225/88

Case C-397/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible — No failure to state reasons — Imprecise ground of appeal — Ground of appeal seeking reconsideration of the application at first instance)

50

2013/C 225/89

Case C-415/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Bianca Brandes v Land Niedersachsen (Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Framework agreement on part-time work — Full-time worker having been unable to exercise her entitlement to paid annual leave during the reference period — Move of that worker to a scheme of part-time work — National provision or practice providing for a reduction in the number of days of paid leave previously accumulated thereby to be in proportion to the number of days of part-time work per week)

50

2013/C 225/90

Case C-418/12 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia v European Commission (Appeal — Public service contracts — Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds — Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the appellant — Refusal of the Commission to open an infringement or financial adjustment procedure against Romania)

51

2013/C 225/91

Case C-436/12 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v European Commission, Italian Republic (Appeal — State aid — Aid to undertakings established in the territory of Venice and Chioggia)

51

2013/C 225/92

Case C-468/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza — Italy) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Ciesse srl (Request for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Articles 53(2), 93(a), and 99 — Directive 200817/EC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Article 5(1)(c) — Scope — Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)

52

2013/C 225/93

Case C-542/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fidenato Giorgio (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2002/53/EC — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered in the common catalogue — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 20 — Existing products — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 26a — Measures to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms)

52

2013/C 225/94

Case C-566/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Erusalim Baleanu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-311/12: Baleanu v Commission

53

2013/C 225/95

Case C-567/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Adrian Barliba against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-312/12: Barliba v Commission

53

2013/C 225/96

Case C-568/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Doru Cristian Ioanovici against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-313/12: Ioanovici v Commission

53

2013/C 225/97

Case C-569/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Emil Micsunescu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12: Micsunescu v Commission

53

2013/C 225/98

Case C-570/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Alexandru Octavian Concal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-320/12: Concal v Commission

53

2013/C 225/99

Case C-14/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Gena Ivanova Cholakova v Osmo Rayonno Upravlienie pri Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti (Request for a preliminary ruling — Articles 21(1) TFEU, 67 TFEU and 72 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National rules permitting a person to be detained in order to establish his identity — Lack of connection with European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

54

2013/C 225/00

Case C-73/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy)) — T (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

54

2013/C 225/01

Case C-106/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of European Union law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

54

2013/C 225/02

Case C-444/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Hardimpex Kft (in liquidation) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

55

2013/C 225/03

Case C-465/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 October 2012 by Plamen Simov against the order of the General Court delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Plamen Simov v European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria

55

2013/C 225/04

Case C-471/12 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. against the judgment delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-587/10 Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. v Commission

55

2013/C 225/05

Case C-535/12 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Rafael Faet Oltra against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Rafael Faet Oltra v European Ombudsman

56

2013/C 225/06

Joined Cases C-436/11 and C-437/11: Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer (C-436/11), Ekkerhard Schauβ (C-437/11) v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA (C-436/11), Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (C-437/11)

56

2013/C 225/07

Case C-594/11: Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2013 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA

56

2013/C 225/08

Case C-29/12: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 12 June 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

56

2013/C 225/09

Case C-76/12: Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

56

2013/C 225/10

Case C-126/12: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Edgar Brück v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse

56

2013/C 225/11

Case C-146/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany supported by the Slovak Republic

56

2013/C 225/12

Case C-212/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helmut Butz, Christel Bachmann-Butz, Frederike Butz v Société Air France SA

57

2013/C 225/13

Case C-213/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

57

2013/C 225/14

Case C-227/12: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, trading under the name ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

57

2013/C 225/15

Case C-253/12: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 27 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — JS v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (The Czech social security administration)

57

2013/C 225/16

Case C-308/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

57

2013/C 225/17

Case C-330/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

57

2013/C 225/18

Case C-331/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

57

2013/C 225/19

Case C-392/12: Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2013 — Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blueshore Management SA

58

2013/C 225/20

Case C-406/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

58

2013/C 225/21

Case C-407/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

58

2013/C 225/22

Case C-416/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikom Deutsche Telekabel GmbH previously Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH

58

2013/C 225/23

Case C-432/12 P: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vermop Salmon GmbH

58

2013/C 225/24

Case C-496/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.

58

2013/C 225/25

Case C-513/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany

58

2013/C 225/26

Case C-538/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

58

2013/C 225/27

Case C-545/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

59

2013/C 225/28

Case C-572/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

59

2013/C 225/29

Case C-585/12: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2013 — Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV v European Commission

59

2013/C 225/30

Case C-618/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Société Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

59

2013/C 225/31

Case C-68/13: Order of the President of the Court of 28 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Markus Weiss v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

59

2013/C 225/32

Case C-158/13: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

59

General Court

2013/C 225/33

Case T-267/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure excluded from financing — Excessive delay in the assessment by the Commission of the communications sent pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 — Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable time)

60

2013/C 225/34

Case T-404/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Fluorsid and Minmet v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — World market in aluminium fluoride — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Out of time — Inadmissibility — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Evidence of the infringement — Rights of defence — Definition of the relevant market — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — 2006 Guidelines on fines)

60

2013/C 225/35

Case T-405/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Spar Österreichische Warenhandels v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Markets for everyday consumer goods — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Commitments — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Duty to state reasons)

61

2013/C 225/36

Case T-406/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — ICF v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — World market in aluminium fluoride — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Evidence of the infringement — Rights of defence — Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on fines — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement)

61

2013/C 225/37

Case T-280/09: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Morte Navarro v Parliament (Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action on the petition — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)

61

2013/C 225/38

Case T-509/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission (Fisheries — Financial contribution for the implementation of control and surveillance systems — Decision not to reimburse expenditure incurred for the purchase of two Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV) — Article 296 EC — Directive 93/36/EEC — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons)

62

2013/C 225/39

Case T-214/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DIVINUS — Earlier national figurative mark MOSELLAND Divinum — Existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier right — Proof)

62

2013/C 225/40

Case T-218/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — DHL International v OHIM — Service Point Solutions (SERVICEPOINT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SERVICEPOINT — Earlier Community marks ServicePoint and earlier national marks — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

63

2013/C 225/41

Case T-384/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Projects concerning water supply to settlements in the Guadiana river basin in the Andévalo area, drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir river basin and water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga — Partial withdrawal of financial assistance — Public works and services contracts — Work — Split of the procurement — Determination of the financial corrections — Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation No 1164/94 — Proportionality)

63

2013/C 225/42

Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Nencini v Parliament (Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Travel and parliamentary assistance expenses — Recovery of undue payments — Limitation period — Reasonable period — Rights of the defence — Principle of audi alteram partem — Proportionality)

64

2013/C 225/43

Joined Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Anicav and Others v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector — Actions for annulment — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Processed fruit and vegetables — Operational funds and operational programmes — Funding of (non-)genuine processing activities)

64

2013/C 225/44

Case T-2/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred in connection with the POSEI measure (financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007))

65

2013/C 225/45

Case T-65/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Recombined Dairy System v Commission (Customs union — Import of lactoglobulin concentrates from New Zealand — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Request for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)

66

2013/C 225/46

Case T-68/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Kastenholz v OHIM — Qwatchme (Watch dials) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing watch dials — Earlier unregistered designs — Ground for invalidity — Novelty — Articles 4, 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Individual character — Different overall impression — Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Earlier copyright — Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002)

66

2013/C 225/47

Case T-74/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) — Decision rejecting a complaint — No European Union interest)

66

2013/C 225/48

Case T-93/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India for the purposes of concluding a free trade agreement — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations — Documents which have entered the public domain — Non-imposition of a restriction on disclosure of documents)

67

2013/C 225/49

Case T-178/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Voss of Norway v OHIM — Nordic Spirit (Three-dimensional shape of a bottle) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the shape of a bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal)

67

2013/C 225/50

Case T-187/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Trabelsi and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Action for damages — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)

68

2013/C 225/51

Case T-188/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Chiboub v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — No legal basis)

68

2013/C 225/52

Case T-200/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Al Matri v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — No legal basis)

69

2013/C 225/53

Case T-219/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark AGIPA — Earlier national word mark AGIPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Comparison of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

69

2013/C 225/54

Case T-248/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — International Engine Intellectual Property Company v OHIM (PURE POWER) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PURE POWER — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

70

2013/C 225/55

Case T-279/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (Agriculture — Exceptional measures concerning the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market and opening a tariff quota — Action for annulment — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility — Action for damages)

70

2013/C 225/56

Case T-396/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ultrafilter international — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Abuse of rights)

71

2013/C 225/57

Case T-505/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2013 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark dialdi — Earlier Community word mark ALDI — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

71

2013/C 225/58

Case T-514/11: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BETWIN — Earlier Community figurative mark b’Twin — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

72

2013/C 225/59

Case T-515/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

72

2013/C 225/60

Case T-522/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (APLI-AGIPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark APLI-AGIPA — Earlier national word mark AGIPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Comparison of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

73

2013/C 225/61

Case T-580/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark NICORONO — Earlier Community word mark NICORETTE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

73

2013/C 225/62

Case T-598/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index) (Community Trade mark — Application for Community word mark Lean Performance Index — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

73

2013/C 225/63

Case T-608/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer (Instrument for writing) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an instrument for writing — Earlier national figurative and three-dimensional trade marks — Ground for invalidity — Use in the Community design of an earlier sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision)

74

2013/C 225/64

Case T-636/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — Hostel drap v OHIM — Aznar Textil (MY drap) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MY drap — Earlier Community figurative mark BON DRAP — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

74

2013/C 225/65

Case T-645/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Heath v ECB (Appeal — Civil Service Tribunal — Employees of the ECB — Pensions — Annual increase — Rate of increase for 2010 — Retroactivity — Right to collective bargaining)

74

2013/C 225/66

Case T-668/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament (Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Community procurement procedure — Transport of Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during sessions at Strasbourg — Rejection of the bid of a tenderer — Annulment by the General Court of the rejection decision — Loss allegedly suffered following the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid — Action for damages)

75

2013/C 225/67

Case T-89/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark R — Earlier national figurative mark R — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

75

2013/C 225/68

Case T-115/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Roca — Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

75

2013/C 225/69

Case T-126/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Inspired by efficiency — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

76

2013/C 225/70

Case T-128/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — HTTS v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)

76

2013/C 225/71

Case T-172/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Be Light — Earlier Community mark BECK’s — relative ground for refusal — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

77

2013/C 225/72

Case T-367/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark MOL Blue Card — Earlier Community word marks BLUE, BLUE BBVA and TARJETA BLUE BBVA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

77

2013/C 225/73

Case T-411/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET — Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

78

2013/C 225/74

Case T-322/09: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Al-Faqih and MIRA v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — No need to adjudicate)

78

2013/C 225/75

Case T-69/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Zavvar v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate)

79

2013/C 225/76

Case T-70/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Divandari v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Plea of inadmissibility — Lis pendens — Plea of illegality — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate)

79

2013/C 225/77

Case T-71/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Meskarian v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate)

80

2013/C 225/78

Case T-213/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — Helicopter support to the EULEX Kosovo mission — Rejection of the bid of a tenderer — No legal capacity to be a defendant — Inadmissibility)

80

2013/C 225/79

Case T-398/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

81

2013/C 225/80

Case T-399/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

81

2013/C 225/81

Case T-413/12: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Post Invest Europe Sàrl v European Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to De Post-La Poste (now bpost) — Compensation for public service costs — Decision declaring the aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Offers of further evidence)

81

2013/C 225/82

Case T-165/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2013 — Talanton v Commission (Interim relief — Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Repayment of sums paid — Application for stay of execution — No urgency)

82

2013/C 225/83

Case T-201/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Rubinum v Commission (Interim relief — Authorisation of feed additives — Regulation on the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Weighing up of interests)

82

2013/C 225/84

Case T-55/09: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Daniel Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Dabiel Swarovski Privat)

82

2013/C 225/85

Case T-277/09: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Trasys v Commission

82

2013/C 225/86

Case T-45/11: Order of the General Court of 27 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

83

2013/C 225/87

Case T-94/11: Order of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — AU Optronics v Commission

83

2013/C 225/88

Case T-407/11: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — SRF v Council

83

2013/C 225/89

Case T-459/11: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Barloworld v Commission

83

2013/C 225/90

Case T-550/12: Order of the General Court of 3 June 2013 — bachmaier v OHIM — (oto-soft)

83

2013/C 225/91

Case T-13/13: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — MasterCard International v OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)

83

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2013/C 225/92

Case F-56/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading)

84

2013/C 225/93

Case F-86/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions (Civil Service — Officials — Invalidity pension — Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise that invalidity arose from an occupational disease)

84

2013/C 225/94

Case F-88/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — BX v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition EPSO/AD/148/09 — Failure to include the applicant in the reserve list)

84

2013/C 225/95

Case F-116/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Vacca v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/207/11 — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Admission tests — Cancellation of questions — Information for candidates)

85

2013/C 225/96

Case F-44/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days — Application received by post within the following ten days — Applications not the same — Action out of time)

85

2013/C 225/97

Case F-67/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Annulment of the Commission’s decision — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal — Damage arising as a result of non-compliance — Conditions — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law)

85

2013/C 225/98

Case F-1/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 April 2013 — Andersen v Court of Auditors (Civil service — Officials — Retirement on grounds of invalidity — Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

86

2013/C 225/99

Case F-4/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period prescribed for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Application lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None)

86

2013/C 225/00

Case F-54/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2013 — Carosi v Commission

86

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/1

---

2013/C 225/01

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

OJ C 215, 27.7.2013

Past publications

OJ C 207, 20.7.2013

OJ C 189, 29.6.2013

OJ C 178, 22.6.2013

OJ C 171, 15.6.2013

OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-383/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Tax legislation - Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad)

2013/C 225/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 56 and 63 TFEU — Breach of Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Restriction on freedom to provide services and free movement of capital — National provisions establishing a tax exemption applicable only to interest paid by Belgian banks, excluding that paid by non–resident banks — Discriminatory taxation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court declares that:

| 1. | By introducing and maintaining a system of discriminatory taxation of interest payments by non-resident banks, resulting from the application of a tax exemption reserved only to interest payments by resident banks, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

By introducing and maintaining a system of discriminatory taxation of interest payments by non-resident banks, resulting from the application of a tax exemption reserved only to interest payments by resident banks, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

| 2. | The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-512/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 91/440/EEC - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14 - Continued absence of financial balance - Articles 6(1) and 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440 - Absence of incentives for infrastructure managers - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 - Calculation of the minimum access charge)

2013/C 225/03

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Herrmann, Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, K. Bożekowska-Zawisza and M. Laszuk, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: name Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and with Articles 4(2), 6(1) to (3), 7(3), 8(1) and 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt incentives to encourage the railway infrastructure manager to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and the level of access charges, and by permitting the inclusion, in the calculation of charges levied for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities, of costs which cannot be regarded as costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6(2) and 7(3), respectively, of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt incentives to encourage the railway infrastructure manager to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and the level of access charges, and by permitting the inclusion, in the calculation of charges levied for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities, of costs which cannot be regarded as costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6(2) and 7(3), respectively, of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-569/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 94/22/EC - Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons - Non-discriminatory access)

2013/C 225/04

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, M. Drwięcki and. B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect and/or incomplete transposition of Articles 2(2), 3(1) and 5(1) and (2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ 1994 L 164, p. 3) — Non-discriminatory access to those activities and to the exercise thereof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, in failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that access to activities relating to the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons is free of all discrimination as between interested entities and that the authorisations to carry out those activities are granted following a procedure in which all interested entities may submit applications in accordance with criteria published in the Official Journal of the European Union prior to the beginning of the period in which applications may be submitted, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(2) and 5(1) and (2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, in failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that access to activities relating to the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons is free of all discrimination as between interested entities and that the authorisations to carry out those activities are granted following a procedure in which all interested entities may submit applications in accordance with criteria published in the Official Journal of the European Union prior to the beginning of the period in which applications may be submitted, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(2) and 5(1) and (2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons.

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny — Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Poland)) — Janina Wencel v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku

(Case C-589/10) (1)

(Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 10 - Old-age benefits - Habitual residence in two different Member States - A survivor’s pension received in one of those States and a retirement pension in the other - Withdrawal of one of those benefits - Recovery of benefits to which it is alleged the recipient was not entitled)

2013/C 225/05

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny — Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Janina Wencel

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Apelacyjny w Białymstoku — Interpretation of Articles 20(2) TFEU and 21 TFEU, as well as Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Old-age benefits — Waiving of residence clauses — Prohibition on withdrawing a benefit on account of the fact that the recipient resides in a Member State other than that in which the institution responsible for payment is established — European Union citizen who has been resident in two Member States contemporaneously, without opting for a single domicile, and who receives a survivor’s pension in one State and an old-age pension in the other State — National legislation allowing, in such a case, review of the right to the pension and repayment of the pension paid during the last three years

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended most recently by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of the regulation, a person cannot have simultaneously two habitual residences in two different Member States.

Under the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71, in particular Articles 12(2) and 46a, the competent institution of a Member State cannot, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, legitimately withdraw, retroactively, the entitlement to a retirement pension of the person concerned and require that person to repay any pension to which it is alleged he was not entitled on the ground that he receives a survivor’s pension in another Member State in whose territory he has also been resident. However, the amount of the retirement pension paid in the first Member State may be reduced, up to the limit of the amount of the benefits received in the other Member State, by virtue of the application of any national rule precluding the cumulation of benefits.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a decision requiring the amount of the retirement pension paid in the first Member State to be reduced, up to the limit of the benefits received in the other Member State, by virtue of the application of any rule precluding the cumulation of benefits, provided that decision does not lead, in respect of the recipient of those benefits, to an unfavourable situation in comparison with that of a person whose situation has no cross-border element and, where such a disadvantage is established, provided that it is justified by objective considerations and is proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued by national law, which it falls to the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele v Gouvernement flamand (C-197/11), All Projects & Developments NV and Others v Vlaamse Regering (C-203/11)

(Joined Cases C-197/11 and C-203/11) (1)

(Fundamental freedoms - Restriction - Justification - State aid - Concept of ‘public works contract’ - Land and buildings located in certain communes - National legislation making the transfer of land and buildings subject to the condition that there exists a ‘sufficient connection’ between the prospective buyer or tenant and the target commune - Social obligation on subdividers and developers - Tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms)

2013/C 225/06

Languages of the case: French and Dutch

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-197/11)

Applicants: Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele

Defendant: Gouvernement flamand

Intervening parties: Collège de la Commission communautaire française, Gouvernement de la Communauté française, Conseil des ministres

(Case C-203/11)

Applicants: All Projects & Developments NV and Others

Defendant: Vlaamse Regering

Intervening parties: College van de Franse Gemeenschapscommissie, Franse Gemeenschapsregering, Ministerraad, Immo Vilvo NV, PSR Brownfield Developers NV

Re:

(Case C-197/11)

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle — Interpretation of Articles 21, 45, 49, 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Compatibility of those provisions with regional legislation under which the sale or lease of land and buildings thereon located in certain communes is conditional upon the prospective purchaser or lessee having a sufficient connection with the commune concerned — Infringement of the right to freedom of movement and residence in the territory of Member States — General interest objective — Principle of proportionality

(Case C-203/11)

Request for a preliminary ruling — Grondwettelijk Hof — Interpretation of Articles 21, 45, 49, 56, 63, 107 and 108 TFEU and Article 86(2) EC — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b) 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), of Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p.77) and of Articles 2(2)(a) and (j), 4(6), and 9, 14 and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) — State aid — Regional legislation on land and real estate policy — Social housing — Public works contracts — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC preclude legislation, such as Book 5 of the Decree of the Flemish Region of 27 March 2009 on land and real estate policy, which makes the transfer of immovable property in the target communes designated by the Vlaamse Regering subject to verification, by a provincial assessment committee, that there exists a ‘sufficient connection’ between the prospective buyer or tenant and those communes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC preclude legislation, such as Book 5 of the Decree of the Flemish Region of 27 March 2009 on land and real estate policy, which makes the transfer of immovable property in the target communes designated by the Vlaamse Regering subject to verification, by a provincial assessment committee, that there exists a ‘sufficient connection’ between the prospective buyer or tenant and those communes.

| 2. | Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation such as Book 4 of the Decree of the Flemish Region, according to which a ‘social obligation’ is imposed on some economic operators when a building or land subdivision authorisation is granted, in so far as the referring court finds that that legislation is necessary and appropriate to attain the objective of guaranteeing sufficient housing for the low-income or otherwise disadvantaged sections of the local population. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation such as Book 4 of the Decree of the Flemish Region, according to which a ‘social obligation’ is imposed on some economic operators when a building or land subdivision authorisation is granted, in so far as the referring court finds that that legislation is necessary and appropriate to attain the objective of guaranteeing sufficient housing for the low-income or otherwise disadvantaged sections of the local population.

| 3. | The tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms provided for in the Flemish Decree are liable to be classified as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It is for the referring court to determine whether the conditions relating to the existence of State aid are met and, if so, to ascertain whether, as regards the measures established in Book 4 of the Flemish Decree whereby compensation is provided for the social obligation to which subdividers and developers are subject, Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) [EC] to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest is nevertheless applicable to such measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms provided for in the Flemish Decree are liable to be classified as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It is for the referring court to determine whether the conditions relating to the existence of State aid are met and, if so, to ascertain whether, as regards the measures established in Book 4 of the Flemish Decree whereby compensation is provided for the social obligation to which subdividers and developers are subject, Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) [EC] to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest is nevertheless applicable to such measures.

| 4. | The development of social housing units which are subsequently to be sold at capped prices to a public social housing institution, or with substitution of that institution for the service provider which developed those units, is covered by the concept of ‘public works contract’ contained in Article 1(2)(b) 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, where the criteria set out in that provision have been met, a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The development of social housing units which are subsequently to be sold at capped prices to a public social housing institution, or with substitution of that institution for the service provider which developed those units, is covered by the concept of ‘public works contract’ contained in Article 1(2)(b) 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, where the criteria set out in that provision have been met, a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd

(Case C-228/11) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict - Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act - Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant (‘wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung’))

2013/C 225/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Melzer

Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction relating to matters in tort or delict or quaisi-delict — Determination of territorial jurisdiction to hear an action for damages in the case of cross-border participation of several people in a single unlawful act — Possibility of establishing that jurisdiction according to the place where the harmful act was committed by a perpetrator other than the defendant

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the courts of the place where a harmful event occurred which is imputed to one of the presumed perpetrators of damage, who is not a party to the dispute, to take jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of that damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-241/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/41/EC - Activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision - Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed period - Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Failure to comply with the judgment - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Lump sum)

2013/C 225/08

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, N. Yerrell and K.P. Wojcik, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10) — Imposition of a lump sum payment and a penalty payment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent to the Czech Republic by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent to the Czech Republic by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 250 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 250 000;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-270/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Imposition of a lump sum payment)

2013/C 225/09

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Tufvesson and D. Maidani and by F. Coudert, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 260 TFEU — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09 Commission v Sweden — Application for a penalty to be imposed

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09 Commission v Sweden [2010] ECR I-14 concerning the failure to transpose into Swedish law Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, and by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09 Commission v Sweden [2010] ECR I-14 concerning the failure to transpose into Swedish law Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, and by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the European Commission, to the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum payment of EUR 3 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the European Commission, to the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum payment of EUR 3 000 000;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)) — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-300/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 2004/38/EC - Decision refusing a citizen of the European Union admission to a Member State on public security grounds - Article 30(2) of the directive - Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the grounds of that decision - Disclosure contrary to the interests of State security - Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

2013/C 225/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ZZ

Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) in the light of Article 346(1)(a) TFEU — Right to effective judicial protection — Decision to exclude a citizen of a Member State from the territory of another Member State on grounds of public security — Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the reasons for his exclusion in spite of the fact that the authorities responsible consider such disclosure contrary to the interests of State security

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 30(2) and 31 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as requiring the national court with jurisdiction to ensure that failure by the competent national authority to disclose to the person concerned, precisely and in full, the grounds on which a decision taken under Article 27 of that directive is based and to disclose the related evidence to him is limited to that which is strictly necessary, and that he is informed, in any event, of the essence of those grounds in a manner which takes due account of the necessary confidentiality of the evidence.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren

(Case C-386/11) (1)

(Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Definition of ‘public contract’ - Article 1(2)(a) - Contract concluded between two local authorities - Transfer by one entity of the responsibility for cleaning certain of its buildings to another entity in return for financial compensation)

2013/C 225/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Kreis Düren

Intervening party: Stadt Düren

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) 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) — Agreement under which, in return for the reimbursement of costs incurred, a regional authority transfers responsibility for the cleaning of the public buildings which it owns to the local authority responsible for the area in which the buildings are situated — Classification of that agreement as a public service contract or as an agreement on cooperation between local authorities that is not subject to the European Union rules on public procurement

Operative part of the judgment

A contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings — whereby, without establishing cooperation between the contracting public entities with a view to carrying out a public service task that both of them have to perform, one public entity assigns to another the task of cleaning certain office, administrative and school buildings, while reserving the power to supervise the proper execution of that task, in return for financial compensation intended to correspond to the costs incurred in the performance of the task, the second entity being, moreover, authorised to avail of the services of third parties which might be capable of competing on the market for the accomplishment of that task — constitutes a public service contract within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Erika Jőrös v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

(Case C-397/11) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair - Consequences to be drawn by the national court from a finding that the term is unfair)

2013/C 225/12

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly known as Fővárosi Bíróság)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Erika Jőrös

Defendant: Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — National legislation providing that a national court is limited in its examination of whether standard contract terms are unfair where the parties do not expressly seek a finding that such a term is unfair — Option for the national court of second instance to find of its own motion that a term of a contract before it is unfair even if that point was not raised at first instance and, under national rules, no account may be taken on appeal of new facts and evidence

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that where a national court, dealing with an appeal concerning the validity of terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer on the basis of a form prepared in advance by that seller or supplier, has the power, under its internal procedural rules, to examine any grounds for invalidity clearly apparent from the elements submitted at first instance and, if necessary, to redefine, depending on the facts determined, the legal basis relied upon to establish that those terms are invalid, it must assess, of its own motion or by redefining the legal basis of the application, whether those terms are unfair in the light of the criteria in that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that where a national court, dealing with an appeal concerning the validity of terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer on the basis of a form prepared in advance by that seller or supplier, has the power, under its internal procedural rules, to examine any grounds for invalidity clearly apparent from the elements submitted at first instance and, if necessary, to redefine, depending on the facts determined, the legal basis relied upon to establish that those terms are invalid, it must assess, of its own motion or by redefining the legal basis of the application, whether those terms are unfair in the light of the criteria in that directive.

| 2. | Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has established that a contractual term is unfair is required, first, without waiting for the consumer to make an application in that regard, to draw all the consequences which, under national law, result from that finding in order to satisfy itself that that consumer is not bound by that term and, secondly, to assess, in principle on the basis of objective criteria, whether the contract concerned can continue in existence without that term. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has established that a contractual term is unfair is required, first, without waiting for the consumer to make an application in that regard, to draw all the consequences which, under national law, result from that finding in order to satisfy itself that that consumer is not bound by that term and, secondly, to assess, in principle on the basis of objective criteria, whether the contract concerned can continue in existence without that term.

| 3. | Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has, of its own motion, established that a contractual term is unfair must, as far as possible, apply its internal procedural rules in such a way as to draw all the consequences which, under national law, result from a finding that the term at issue is unfair, in order to satisfy itself that the consumer is not bound by that term. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has, of its own motion, established that a contractual term is unfair must, as far as possible, apply its internal procedural rules in such a way as to draw all the consequences which, under national law, result from a finding that the term at issue is unfair, in order to satisfy itself that the consumer is not bound by that term.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera, formerly Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH (C-457/11), Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-458/11), and Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (C-459/11), Hewlett-Packard GmbH (C-460/11) v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

(Joined Cases C-457/11 to C-460/11) (1)

(Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Reproduction right - Fair compensation - Concept of ‘reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ - Consequences of the non-application of technological measures which are available to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts - Consequences of an express or implied authorisation to reproduce)

2013/C 225/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort), Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (C-459/11), Hewlett-Packard GmbH (C-460/11)

Defendants: Kyocera, formerly Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH (C-457/11), Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-458/11), Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Reproduction right — Concept of ‘reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ in Article 5(2)(a) of that directive — Possible inclusion of reproductions effected by means of printers and plotters

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | With regard to the period from 22 June 2001, the date on which Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society entered into force, to 22 December 2002, the date by which that directive was to have been transposed into national law, acts of using protected works or other subject-matter are not affected by that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

With regard to the period from 22 June 2001, the date on which Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society entered into force, to 22 December 2002, the date by which that directive was to have been transposed into national law, acts of using protected works or other subject-matter are not affected by that directive.

| 2. | In the context of an exception or limitation provided for by Article 5(2) or (3) of Directive 2001/29, an act by which a rightholder may have authorised the reproduction of his protected work or other subject-matter has no bearing on the fair compensation owed, whether it is provided for on a compulsory or an optional basis under the relevant provision of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the context of an exception or limitation provided for by Article 5(2) or (3) of Directive 2001/29, an act by which a rightholder may have authorised the reproduction of his protected work or other subject-matter has no bearing on the fair compensation owed, whether it is provided for on a compulsory or an optional basis under the relevant provision of that directive.

| 3. | The possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of Directive 2001/29 cannot render inapplicable the condition relating to fair compensation provided for by Article 5(2)(b) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of Directive 2001/29 cannot render inapplicable the condition relating to fair compensation provided for by Article 5(2)(b) of that directive.

| 4. | The concept of ‘reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as including reproductions effected using a printer and a personal computer, where the two are linked together. In this case, it is open to the Member States to put in place a system in which the fair compensation is paid by the persons in possession of a device contributing, in a non-autonomous manner, to the single process of reproduction of the protected work or other subject-matter on the given medium, in so far as those persons have the possibility of passing on the cost of the levy to their customers, provided that the overall amount of the fair compensation owed as recompense for the harm suffered by the author at the end of that single process must not be substantially different from the amount fixed for a reproduction obtained by means of a single device. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The concept of ‘reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as including reproductions effected using a printer and a personal computer, where the two are linked together. In this case, it is open to the Member States to put in place a system in which the fair compensation is paid by the persons in possession of a device contributing, in a non-autonomous manner, to the single process of reproduction of the protected work or other subject-matter on the given medium, in so far as those persons have the possibility of passing on the cost of the levy to their customers, provided that the overall amount of the fair compensation owed as recompense for the harm suffered by the author at the end of that single process must not be substantially different from the amount fixed for a reproduction obtained by means of a single device.

---

(1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-485/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations - National legislation - Electronic telecommunications operators - Requirement to pay an additional charge)

2013/C 225/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and G. Braun, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of France (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó, K. Molnár and A. Szilágyi, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Compatibility of national legislation introducing an additional charge on electronic telecommunications operators

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 Kingdom of Spain and Hungary to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain and Hungary to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina de Man Garabito v Jahani BV

(Case C-488/11) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Residential tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis - Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair - Penalty clause - Annulment of the clause)

2013/C 225/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina de Man Garabito

Defendant: Jahani BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis — Classification of the landlord as a seller of goods or a supplier of services — Rules of public policy

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions set out by national law, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain, it applies to a residential tenancy agreement concluded between a landlord acting for purposes relating to his trade, business or profession and a tenant acting for purposes which do not relate to his trade, business or profession. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions set out by national law, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain, it applies to a residential tenancy agreement concluded between a landlord acting for purposes relating to his trade, business or profession and a tenant acting for purposes which do not relate to his trade, business or profession.

| 2. | Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | where a national court, before which an action has been brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer concerning the performance of a contract, has the power, under internal procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether the term upon which the claim is based is contrary to national rules of public policy, it must, in the same way, where it has established that that term falls within the scope of that directive, assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair in the light of the criteria laid down in that directive; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

where a national court, before which an action has been brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer concerning the performance of a contract, has the power, under internal procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether the term upon which the claim is based is contrary to national rules of public policy, it must, in the same way, where it has established that that term falls within the scope of that directive, assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair in the light of the criteria laid down in that directive;

| — | where the national court has the power, under internal procedural rules, to annul of its own motion a term which is contrary to public policy or to a mandatory statutory provision the scope of which warrants such a sanction, it must, as a rule, after having invited each of the parties to set out its views on that matter, with the opportunity to challenge the views of the other party, annul of its own motion a contractual term which it has found to be unfair in the light of the criteria laid down by that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

where the national court has the power, under internal procedural rules, to annul of its own motion a term which is contrary to public policy or to a mandatory statutory provision the scope of which warrants such a sanction, it must, as a rule, after having invited each of the parties to set out its views on that matter, with the opportunity to challenge the views of the other party, annul of its own motion a contractual term which it has found to be unfair in the light of the criteria laid down by that directive.

| 3. | Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the national court, in the case where it has established that a penalty clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, merely, as it is authorised by national law, to reduce the amount of the penalty imposed on the consumer by that clause, but requires it to exclude the application of that clause in its entirety with regard to the consumer. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the national court, in the case where it has established that a penalty clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, merely, as it is authorised by national law, to reduce the amount of the penalty imposed on the consumer by that clause, but requires it to exclude the application of that clause in its entirety with regard to the consumer.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Italy) — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA)

(Case C-492/11) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Mediation in civil and commercial matters - Directive 2008/52/EC - National legislation providing for a compulsory mediation procedure - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/16

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ciro Di Donna

Defendant: Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3) — National legislation imposing a compulsory attempt at conciliation before judicial proceedings can be brought, such as can affect the initiation, duration and the outcome of proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

There is no need to answer the question referred by the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) by decision of 21 September 2011 for a preliminary ruling in Case C-492/11.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Eni SpA v European Commission

(Case C-508/11 P P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Gravity of the infringement - Multiplier for deterrence - Actual impact on the market - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringements)

2013/C 225/17

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Eni SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, avvocati)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2011 — Case T-39/07 Eni v Commission by which the General Court dismissed in part the action seeking the annulment, as regards Eni SpA, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber), or, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Eni — Evidence of infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Failure to state reasons

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 Eni SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eni SpA 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 340, 19.11.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA v European Commission

(Case C-511/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber manufactured by emulsion polymerisation - Fixing price targets, sharing clients by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information - Evidence - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Amount of the fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstance - Repeated infringement)

2013/C 225/18

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/05 Polimeri Europa v Commission by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber) or, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Imputability of the infringement — Failure to state reasons

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 Versalis SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Versalis SpA 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 340, 19.11.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet

(Case C-528/11) (1)

(Asylum - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 3(2) - Discretion of the Member States - Role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - Obligation of Member States to request that Office to present its views - None)

2013/C 225/19

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf

Defendant: Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 3(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 (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Asylum application previously made in another Member State — Obligation of the requested Member State to take responsibility for examining an asylum application, on the basis of the ‘sovereignty’ clause of Article 3(2) of that regulation, where the asylum legislation and practices of the Member State responsible do not comply with international rules on human rights and Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Legislation of the requested Member State not providing either criteria or rules of procedure for the application of the sovereignty clause — Admissible evidence of non-compliance with European Union law on asylum where there is no judgment of the Court of Justice declaring that by reason of those infringements the Member State responsible has failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to asylum

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(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 permitting a Member State, which is not indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of that regulation, to examine an application for asylum even though no circumstances exist which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of that regulation. That possibility is not conditional on the Member State responsible under those criteria having failed to respond to a request to take back the asylum seeker concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(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 permitting a Member State, which is not indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of that regulation, to examine an application for asylum even though no circumstances exist which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of that regulation. That possibility is not conditional on the Member State responsible under those criteria having failed to respond to a request to take back the asylum seeker concerned.

| 2. | The Member State in which the asylum seeker is present is not obliged, during the process of determining the Member State responsible, to request the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to present its views where it is apparent from the documents of that Office that the Member State indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of Regulation No 343/2003 is in breach of the rules of European Union law on asylum. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Member State in which the asylum seeker is present is not obliged, during the process of determining the Member State responsible, to request the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to present its views where it is apparent from the documents of that Office that the Member State indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of Regulation No 343/2003 is in breach of the rules of European Union law on asylum.

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-529/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - Divorced spouse of a national of a Member State who has worked in another Member State - Adult child pursuing his studies in the host Member State - Right of residence of parent who is national of a non-Member State - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 16 to 18 - Right of permanent residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State - Legal residence - Residence based on Article 12 above)

2013/C 225/20

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervening party: AIRE Centre

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — Interpretation of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ 1968 L 257, p. 2) — Right of residence, following her divorce from a national of another Member State having exercised his right to free movement, of a national of a non-Member State responsible for care of her child, the latter being more than 21 years old and studying in the host Member State — Meaning of ‘parent who is primary carer for a child’ — Criteria for assessment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The parent of a child who has attained the age of majority and who has obtained access to education on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, may continue to have a derived right of residence under that article if that child remains in need of the presence and care of that parent in order to be able to continue and to complete his or her education, which it is for the referring court to assess, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before it; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The parent of a child who has attained the age of majority and who has obtained access to education on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, may continue to have a derived right of residence under that article if that child remains in need of the presence and care of that parent in order to be able to continue and to complete his or her education, which it is for the referring court to assess, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before it;

| 2. | Periods of residence in a host Member State which are completed by family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State solely on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, as amended by Directive 2004/38, where the conditions laid down for entitlement to a right of residence under that directive are not satisfied, may not be taken into consideration for the purposes of acquisition by those family members of a right of permanent residence under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Periods of residence in a host Member State which are completed by family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State solely on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, as amended by Directive 2004/38, where the conditions laid down for entitlement to a right of residence under that directive are not satisfied, may not be taken into consideration for the purposes of acquisition by those family members of a right of permanent residence under that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

(Case C-534/11) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Applicability to asylum seekers - Possibility of keeping a third-country national in detention after an application for asylum has been made)

2013/C 225/21

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mehmet Arslan

Defendant: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of Art. 2(1) in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble to Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Scope — Detention of a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State with a view to his removal where he has made an application for asylum within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status during the period from the making of the application to the adoption of the decision at first instance on that application or, as the case may be, until the outcome of any action brought against that decision is known. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status during the period from the making of the application to the adoption of the decision at first instance on that application or, as the case may be, until the outcome of any action brought against that decision is known.

| 2. | Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and Directive 2005/85 do not preclude a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85 after having been detained under Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 from being kept in detention on the basis of a provision of national law, where it appears, after an assessment on a case-by-case basis of all the relevant circumstances, that the application was made solely to delay or jeopardise the enforcement of the return decision and that it is objectively necessary to maintain detention to prevent the person concerned from permanently evading his return. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and Directive 2005/85 do not preclude a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85 after having been detained under Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 from being kept in detention on the basis of a provision of national law, where it appears, after an assessment on a case-by-case basis of all the relevant circumstances, that the application was made solely to delay or jeopardise the enforcement of the return decision and that it is objectively necessary to maintain detention to prevent the person concerned from permanently evading his return.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Codirex Expeditie BV

(Case C-542/11) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Goods in temporary storage - Non-Community goods - External Community transit procedure - Point at which a customs-approved treatment or use is assigned - Acceptance of the customs declaration - Release of the goods - Customs debt)

2013/C 225/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Codirex Expeditie BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 50 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Goods in temporary storage having been declared for placing under the external Community transit procedure — Point at which a customs-approved treatment or use is assigned

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 50, 67 and 73 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the point at which non-Community goods, covered by a customs declaration accepted by the customs authorities for placing under the external Community transit procedure and having the status of goods in temporary storage, are placed under that customs procedure and thereby assigned a customs-approved treatment or use is the moment at which they are released.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

(Case C-568/11) (1)

(Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Sugar-based product consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and 35 % impurities resulting from the manufacturing process - Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 - Production refund on certain products used in the chemical industry - Community aid wrongly paid - Repayment - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

2013/C 225/23

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agroferm A/S

Defendant: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 of 27 June 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 as regards granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 63) — Tariff classification for the purposes of granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry — Sugar-based product manufactured by fermentation with the aid of Corynebacterium glutamicum bacteria and consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and impurities resulting from the manufacturing process — Classification under headings 2309, 2922 or 3824 of the Combined Nomenclature — Community aid wrongly paid

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Combined Nomenclature listed 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 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of lysine sulphate and impurities resulting from the manufacturing process must be classified under heading 2309 as a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Combined Nomenclature listed 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 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of lysine sulphate and impurities resulting from the manufacturing process must be classified under heading 2309 as a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding;

| 2. | The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the national customs authorities from, first, seeking repayment of a wrongly paid amount of lysine sulphate production refunds that the producer has already received and, second, refusing to pay production refunds on that product which those authorities had given undertakings to that producer to pay. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the national customs authorities from, first, seeking repayment of a wrongly paid amount of lysine sulphate production refunds that the producer has already received and, second, refusing to pay production refunds on that product which those authorities had given undertakings to that producer to pay.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/15

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias

(Case C-575/11) (1)

(Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Profession of physiotherapist - Partial and limited recognition of professional qualifications - Article 49 TFEU)

2013/C 225/24

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos

Defendant: Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU, of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Refusal to grant authorisation giving access to the regulated profession of physiotherapist in a host Member State to one of that State’s nationals who does not have a diploma to that effect, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/51/EEC, but does have qualifications for engaging in a similar profession that is recognised in another Member State — Possibility of partial access, limited to certain activities covered by the profession

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes partial access to the profession of physiotherapist, regulated in the host Member State, by a national of that State who obtained, in another Member State, a qualification such as that of medical masseur-hydrotherapist, authorising him to carry out, in that second Member State, part of the activities coming under the profession of physiotherapist, when the differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality the applicant should follow a full programme of education and training in order to pursue the profession of physiotherapist. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 12 de Madrid — Spain) — Genil 48 SL, Comercial Hostelera de Grandes Vinos SL v Bankinter SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

(Case C-604/11) (1)

(Directive 2004/39/EC - Markets in financial instruments - Article 19 - Conduct of business obligations when providing investment services to clients - Investment advice - Other investment services - Obligation to assess the suitability or appropriateness of the service to be provided - Contractual consequences of non-compliance with that obligation - Investment service offered as part of a financial product - Interest-rate swap agreements to protect against the risk of variations of interest rates on financial products)

2013/C 225/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 12 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Genil 48 SL, Comercial Hostelera de Grandes Vinos SL

Defendants: Bankinter SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 12 de Madrid — Interpretation of Arts 4(1), point (4), and 19(4), (5) and (9) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1) — Interest rate swap arrangements to cover the risk of variations of interest rates on other financial products — Suitability test

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 19(9) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning, firstly, that an investment service is offered as part of a financial product only when it forms an integral part thereof at the time when that financial product is offered to the client and, secondly, that the provisions of European Union legislation and the common European standards referred to by that provision must enable there to be a risk assessment of clients and/or include information requirements, which also encompass the investment service which forms an integral part of the financial product in question, in order for that service no longer to be subject to the obligations laid down in Article 19. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 19(9) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning, firstly, that an investment service is offered as part of a financial product only when it forms an integral part thereof at the time when that financial product is offered to the client and, secondly, that the provisions of European Union legislation and the common European standards referred to by that provision must enable there to be a risk assessment of clients and/or include information requirements, which also encompass the investment service which forms an integral part of the financial product in question, in order for that service no longer to be subject to the obligations laid down in Article 19.

| 2. | Article 4(1)(4) of Directive 2004/39 must be interpreted as meaning that the offering of a swap agreement to a client in order to cover the risk of variation of interest rates on a financial product for which that client has subscribed constitutes investment advice, as defined in that provision, provided that the recommendation to subscribe to such a swap agreement is made to that client in his capacity as an investor, it is presented as suitable for that person or based on a consideration of the circumstances of that person and it is not made solely through distribution channels or intended for the public. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(1)(4) of Directive 2004/39 must be interpreted as meaning that the offering of a swap agreement to a client in order to cover the risk of variation of interest rates on a financial product for which that client has subscribed constitutes investment advice, as defined in that provision, provided that the recommendation to subscribe to such a swap agreement is made to that client in his capacity as an investor, it is presented as suitable for that person or based on a consideration of the circumstances of that person and it is not made solely through distribution channels or intended for the public.

| 3. | It is for the internal legal order of each Member State to determine the contractual consequences where an investment firm offering an investment service fails to comply with the assessment requirements laid down in Article 19(4) and (5) of Directive 2004/39, subject to observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is for the internal legal order of each Member State to determine the contractual consequences where an investment firm offering an investment service fails to comply with the assessment requirements laid down in Article 19(4) and (5) of Directive 2004/39, subject to observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — European Commission v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-615/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for failure to act - Article 232 EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 20(2) - State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines - Complaint - Lack of a decision from the Commission)

2013/C 225/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros), Air One SpA (represented by: M. Merola, M.C. Santacroce and G. Belotti, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07 Ryanair v Commission upholding in part an action for failure to act seeking a finding that the Commission had unlawfully failed to adopt a decision on Ryanair’s complaints concerning aid allegedly granted by Italy to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana in the form of various measures granting advantages to those companies

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — HGA Srl. and Others v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-630/11 P to C-633/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regional State aid - Aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia - New aid - Alteration to an existing aid scheme - Corrective decision - Possibility of adopting such a decision - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4(5), 7(6), 10(1), 13(2), 16 and 20(1) - Incentive effect of the aid - Protection of legitimate expectations)

2013/C 225/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: HGA Srl., Gimar srl, Coghene Costruzioni srl, Camping Pini e Mare di Cogoni Franco & C. Sas, Immobiliare 92 srl, Gardena srl, Hotel Stella 2000 srl, Vadis srl, Macpep srl, San Marco srl, Due lune SpA, Hotel Mistral di Bruno Madeddu & C. Sas, L’Esagono di Mario Azara & C. Snc, Le Buganville srl, (formerly Le Buganville di Cogoni Giuseppe & C. Snc), Le Dune srl, (formerly Le Dune di Stefanelli Vincenzo & C. Snc) (represented by: G. Dore, F. Ciulli and A. Vinci, avvocati) (C-630/11 P), Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi and G. Mameli, avvocati) (C-631/11 P), Timsas srl (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Pinna, avvocati) (C-632/11 P), Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA (represented by: D. Dodaro and R. Masuri, avvocati) (C-633/11 P)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, C. Urraca Caviedes and G. Conte, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-394/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission by which that court dismissed the applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 concerning aid schemes ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid No 272/98’ (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9) by which the Regione autonoma della Sardegna granted subsidies for initial investments in the hotel industry in Sardinia — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders the appellants, jointly and severally, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the appellants, jointly and severally, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-635/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/56/EC - Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies - Article 16(2)(a) and (b) - Company resulting from a cross-border merger - Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States - Participation rights - Failure to provide identical rights)

2013/C 225/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans and C. Wissels, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(2)(b) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1) — Employee participation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that the employees of establishments of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, situated in other Member States enjoy participation rights identical to those enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under point (b) of Article 16(2) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that the employees of establishments of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, situated in other Member States enjoy participation rights identical to those enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under point (b) of Article 16(2) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-648/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determining the Member State responsible - Unaccompanied minor - Successive applications for asylum lodged in two Member States - Absence of a member of the family of the minor in the territory of a Member State - Second paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No 343/2003 - Transfer of the minor to the Member State in which he lodged his first application - Compatibility - Child’s best interests - Article 24(2) of the Charter)

2013/C 225/29

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener: The AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) (UK)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 6 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) — Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining asylum applications lodged by unaccompanied minors who are third-country nationals

Operative part of the judgment

The second paragraph of Article 6 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 such as those of the main proceedings, where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his family legally present in the territory of a Member State has lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State, the Member State in which that minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be designated the ‘Member State responsible’.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV

(Case C-651/11) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 5(8) - Concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ - Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT)

2013/C 225/30

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 5(8) and 6(5) 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) — Taxable transactions — Transfer of a totality of assets and/or of services (or part thereof) — Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company by a shareholder who, until the date of disposal, supplied services subject to VAT to that company

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5(8) and/or 6(5) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT does not amount to the transfer of a totality of assets or services or part thereof within the meaning of those provisions, irrespective of the fact that the other shareholders transfer all the other shares in that company to the same person at practically the same time and that that disposal is closely linked to management activities carried out for that company.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance

(Case C-653/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Supply of advertising and loan broking services - Exemptions - Economic and commercial reality of the transactions - Abusive practices - Transactions with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage)

2013/C 225/31

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 9(2)(e) and Article 13B(d) 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) — Exemption of supplies of loan broking services — Loan broking activities directed at the United Kingdom by a company established in Jersey calling on the services of a person established in the United Kingdom — Attribution of the activities to the company established in Jersey or to the person established in the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

Contractual terms, even though they constitute a factor to be taken into consideration, are not decisive for the purposes of identifying the supplier and the recipient of a ‘supply of services’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 6(1) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000. They may in particular be disregarded if it becomes apparent that they do not reflect economic and commercial reality, but constitute a wholly artificial arrangement which does not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage, which it is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-663/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Products released for consumption in a Member State where the excise duty was paid - Same products transported to another Member State where the excise duty has also been paid - Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the first Member State - Refusal for not introducing the request before the goods were dispatched - Compatibility with European Union law)

2013/C 225/32

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Scandic Distilleries SA

Defendant: Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Oradea — Interpretation of Articles 7 and 22(2)(a) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Refusal of the national authorities to reimburse excise duty levied on products released for consumption in another Member State — Non-compliance by the consignor with its obligation to submit the request for reimbursement to the competent authorities of its Member State before the goods are dispatched — National legislation requiring the production of a series of documents which can be supplied only after the goods have been delivered — Correctness criteria which are more restrictive than the general five-year period applicable for any request for reimbursement — Forfeiture of the trader’s right to obtain reimbursement — Whether compliant with the principles of fiscal neutrality, equivalence and effectiveness

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(1) to (3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, when products, which are subject to excise duty that has been paid and which have been released for consumption in one Member State, are transported to another Member State where those products are subject to excise duty, which has also been paid, a request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the Member State of departure may not be refused on the sole ground that that request was not made before those goods were dispatched, but must be assessed on the basis of Article 22(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC. By contrast, if the excise duty has not been paid in the Member State of destination such a request may be refused on the basis of Article 22(1) and (2) of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

(Case C-667/11) (1)

(Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Articles 13 and 14 - Imports of products originating in China - Anti-dumping duties - Circumvention - Re-consignment of goods via Malaysia - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 - Registration of imports - Recovery of anti-dumping duties - Retroactivity)

2013/C 225/33

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paltrade EOOD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 of 27 October 2010 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2010 L 282, p. 29) — Retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty — Failure to introduce into the Bulgarian customs system a system of registration other than that of the Single Administrative Document — Determination of the appropriate amount of the anti-dumping duty levied retroactively

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, referred to in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 of 27 October 2010 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration, must be interpreted as meaning that means of registration such as those at issue in the main proceedings are in accordance with that provision, and suffice, therefore, for the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following an investigation finding circumvention of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China.

In accordance with Article 1(2) of Regulation No 91/2009, the rate of the extended anti-dumping duty levied retroactively on goods imported prior to the entry into force of Implementing Regulation No 723/2011 is 85 % for ‘all other companies’.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (Viniflhor) v Société anonyme d’intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes (C-671/11 and C-672/11), Organisation de producteurs Les Cimes (C-673/11), Société Agroprovence (C-674/11), Regalp SA (C-675/11), Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM) (C-676/11)

(Joined Cases C-671/11 to C-676/11) (1)

(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - ‘Period under scrutiny’ - Possibility of extending the period under scrutiny and adjusting the temporal parameters - Objective of effective supervision - Legal certainty)

2013/C 225/34

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (Viniflhor)

Respondents: Société anonyme d’intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes (C-671/11 and C-672/11), Organisation de producteurs Les Cimes (C-673/11), Société Agroprovence (C-674/11), Regalp SA (C-675/11), Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM) (C-676/11)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18) — ‘Period under scrutiny’ — Option available to Member States of extending the period under scrutiny in the light of the need to protect the financial interests of the European Union — Obligation to limit the scrutiny period — Repayment of part of the aid received

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/94 of 12 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State makes use of the option of extending the period under scrutiny, that period need not necessarily end during the preceding scrutiny period; rather, it may also end after that period has elapsed. That provision must nonetheless also be interpreted as not conferring upon operators a right which would enable them to oppose inspections other or broader than those envisaged under that provision. It follows that the fact that an inspection relates only to a period ending before the preceding scrutiny period begins cannot, of itself, make that inspection unlawful with regard to the operators scrutinised.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Doux Élevage SNC, Coopérative agricole UKL-ARREE v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF)

(Case C-677/11) (1)

(Article 107(1) TFEU - State aid - Concept of ‘State resources’ - Concept of ‘imputability to the State’ - Inter-trade organisations in the agricultural sector - Recognised organisations - Common activities decided on by those organisations in the interests of trade - Financing by means of contributions introduced on a voluntary basis by those organisations - Administrative measure making those contributions compulsory for all traders in the agricultural industry affected)

2013/C 225/35

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Doux Élevage SNC, Coopérative agricole UKL-ARREE

Defendants: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 107 TFEU in the light of Case C-354/02 Pearle and Others — Decision by which a national authority extends to all the traders in an industry an agreement which introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that authority and renders that contribution compulsory — Implementation of publicity activities, promotional activities, external relations activities, activities in defence of the sector’s interests — Financing of activities which are contrary to EU law — Concept of ‘aid’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a national authority extends to all traders in an agricultural industry an agreement which, like the inter-trade agreement at issue in the main proceedings, introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that national authority, thus rendering that contribution compulsory, in order to make it possible to implement publicity activities, promotional activities, external relations activities, quality assurance activities, research activities and activities in defence of the sector’s interests, does not constitute State aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. AG and Others

(Case C-681/11) (1)

(Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Articles 5 and 23(2) - Intention-related or negligence-related conditions for imposing a fine - Impact of legal advice or of a decision of a national competition authority - Power of a national competition authority to find the infringement of European Union competition law without imposing a fine)

2013/C 225/36

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt

Respondents: Schenker & Co. AG, ABX Logistics (Austria) GmbH, Alpentrans Spedition und Transport GmbH, Logwin Invest Austria GmbH, DHL Express (Austria) GmbH, G. Englmayer Spedition GmbH, Express-Interfracht Internationale Spedition GmbH, A. Ferstl Speditionsgesellschaft mbH, Spedition, Lagerei und Beförderung von Gütern mit Kraftfahrzeugen Alois Herbst GmbH & Co. KG, Johann Huber Spedition und Transportgesellschaft mbH, Kapeller Internationale Spedition GmbH, Keimelmayr Speditions- u. Transport GmbH, Koch Spedition GmbH, Maximilian Schludermann, as insolvency administrator of Kubicargo Speditions GmbH, Kühne + Nagel GmbH, Lagermax Internationale Spedition Gesellschaft mbH, Morawa Transport GmbH, Johann Ogris Internationale Transport- und Speditions GmbH, Logwin Road + Rail Austria GmbH, Internationale Spedition Schneckenreither Gesellschaft mbH, Leopold Schöffl GmbH & Co. KG, ‘Spedpack’-Speditions- und Verpackungsgesellschaft mbH, Johann Strauss GmbH, Thomas Spedition GmbH, Traussnig Spedition GmbH, Treu SpeditionsgesmbH, Spedition Anton Wagner GmbH, Gebrüder Weiss GmbH, Wildenhofer Spedition und Transport GmbH, Marehard u. Wuger Internat. Speditions- u. Logistik GmbH, Rail Cargo Austria AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Vienna) — Interpretation of the provisions of European Union law relating to cartels, in particular of Article 101 TFEU — Fine imposed on transport undertakings participating in a pricing cartel — Error of law on the part of those undertakings with regard to the lawfulness of the cartel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which has infringed that provision may not escape imposition of a fine where the infringement has resulted from that undertaking erring as to the lawfulness of its conduct on account of the terms of legal advice given by a lawyer or of the terms of a decision of a national competition authority.

Article 101 TFEU and Articles 5 and 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the existence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU is established, the national competition authorities may by way of exception confine themselves to finding that infringement without imposing a fine where the undertaking concerned has participated in a national leniency programme.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat OP 84 v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)

(Case C-3/12) (1)

(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - ‘Scrutiny period’ - Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed - Repayment of financial assistance - Penalties)

2013/C 225/37

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Syndicat OP 84

Respondent: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18) — ‘Scrutiny period’ — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny owing to the conduct of the recipient of the financial assistance — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/94 of 12 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities may, if necessary, carry out the scrutiny operations — notified during the scrutiny period falling between 1 July of one year and 30 June of the following year — beyond the end of that period, without causing the procedure to be marred by an irregularity which the operator under scrutiny may rely on against the decision giving due effects to the results of the scrutiny.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Nadežda Riežniece v Latvijas Republikas Zemkopības ministrija, Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-7/12) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework Agreement on Parental Leave - Abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties - Assessment of a female worker who took parental leave as compared to workers who remained in active service - Dismissal at the end of parental leave - Indirect discrimination)

2013/C 225/38

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nadežda Riežniece

Defendant: Latvijas Republikas Zemkopības ministrija, Lauku atbalsta dienests

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) and of Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Dismissal of a female employee on parental leave on her return to her previous post — Measures taken with a view to optimising the number of civil servants due to national economic difficulties — Assessment of the merits of a female employee on parental leave, which takes into account her latest annual performance appraisal before that leave, compared to the assessment of other civil servants who have continued in active employment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, where a much higher number of women than men take parental leave, which it is for the national court to verify, and the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave, concluded on 14 December 1995, contained in the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, must be interpreted as precluding:

| — | a situation where, as part of an assessment of workers in the context of abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties, a worker who has taken parental leave is assessed in his or her absence on the basis of assessment principles and criteria which place him or her in a less favourable position as compared to workers who did not take parental leave; in order to ascertain whether or not that is the case, the national court must inter alia ensure that the assessment encompasses all workers liable to be concerned by the abolishment of the post, that it is based on criteria which are absolutely identical to those applying to workers in active service and that the implementation of those criteria does not involve the physical presence of workers on parental leave; and |
| --- | --- |

—

a situation where, as part of an assessment of workers in the context of abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties, a worker who has taken parental leave is assessed in his or her absence on the basis of assessment principles and criteria which place him or her in a less favourable position as compared to workers who did not take parental leave; in order to ascertain whether or not that is the case, the national court must inter alia ensure that the assessment encompasses all workers liable to be concerned by the abolishment of the post, that it is based on criteria which are absolutely identical to those applying to workers in active service and that the implementation of those criteria does not involve the physical presence of workers on parental leave; and

| — | a situation where a female worker who has been transferred to another post at the end of her parental leave following that assessment is dismissed due to the abolishment of that new post, where it was not impossible for the employer to allow her to return to her former post or where the work assigned to her was not equivalent or similar and consistent with her employment contract or employment relationship, inter alia because, at the time of the transfer, the employer was informed that the new post was due to be abolished, which it is for the national court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

—

a situation where a female worker who has been transferred to another post at the end of her parental leave following that assessment is dismissed due to the abolishment of that new post, where it was not impossible for the employer to allow her to return to her former post or where the work assigned to her was not equivalent or similar and consistent with her employment contract or employment relationship, inter alia because, at the time of the transfer, the employer was informed that the new post was due to be abolished, which it is for the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif, Luxembourg) — Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin, Joëlle Hodin v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

(Case C-20/12) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 7(2) - Financial aid for higher education studies - Condition of residence in the Member State granting the assistance - Refusal to grant the aid to students, who are European Union citizens not residing in the Member State concerned, whose father or mother, a frontier worker, works in that Member State - Indirect discrimination - Justification - Objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree - Whether appropriate - Proportionality)

2013/C 225/39

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin, Joëlle Hodin

Defendant: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Intervening party: Didier Taminiaux

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Whether national legislation making the grant of financial aid for higher education dependent on a condition of residence which applies both to home students and to students from another Member State is permissible — Social advantage within the meaning of the abovementioned regulation — Difference in treatment between the children of national workers and the children of migrant workers — Reasons

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, must be interpreted as precluding, in principle, legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of financial aid for higher education studies conditional upon residence by the student in that Member State and gives rise to a difference in treatment, amounting to indirect discrimination, between persons who reside in the Member State concerned and those who, not being residents of that Member State, are the children of frontier workers carrying out an activity in that Member State.

While the objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree in order to promote the development of the economy of that same Member State is a legitimate objective which can justify such a difference in treatment and while a condition of residence, such as that provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of that objective, such a condition nevertheless goes beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective pursued, to the extent that it precludes the taking into account of other elements potentially representative of the actual degree of attachment of the applicant for the financial aid with the society or with the labour market of the Member State concerned, such as the fact that one of the parents, who continues to support the student, is a frontier worker who has stable employment in that Member State and has already worked there for a significant period of time.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS) v Radia Hadj Ahmed

(Case C-45/12) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Scope ratione personae - Grant of family benefits to a third-country national with a right of residence in a Member State - Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 - Directive 2004/38/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Length-of-residence requirement)

2013/C 225/40

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS)

Defendant: Radia Hadj Ahmed

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — Interpretation of Articles 13(2) and 14 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Interpretation of Article 18 TFEU and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Grant of family benefits to a third-country national who has obtained a permit to reside in a Member State in order to join, not in the context of marriage or registered partnership, a national of another Member State — Presence of another child who is a third-country national — Scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘member of the family’ — National legislation imposing length-of-residence requirement for the grant of family benefits — Equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or her daughter, who is also a third-country national, while their situation is the following:






  — | that third-country national obtained, less than five years earlier, a permit to reside in a Member State in order to join, not in the context of marriage or registered partnership, a national of another Member State, by whom she has a child who has the nationality of the latter Member State; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or her daughter, who is also a third-country national, while their situation is the following:

—

that third-country national obtained, less than five years earlier, a permit to reside in a Member State in order to join, not in the context of marriage or registered partnership, a national of another Member State, by whom she has a child who has the nationality of the latter Member State;

| — | only that national of another Member State has the status of worker; |
| --- | --- |

—

only that national of another Member State has the status of worker;

| — | in the meantime the cohabitation of the third-country national and the national of another Member State has come to an end; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the meantime the cohabitation of the third-country national and the national of another Member State has come to an end; and

| — | both children are members of their mother’s household, |
| --- | --- |

—

both children are members of their mother’s household,

do not come within the scope ratione personae of that regulation, unless that third-country national or her daughter can be regarded, within the meaning of the national legislation and for its application, as ‘members of the family’ of the national of another Member State or, where that is not the case, unless they can be regarded as being ‘mainly dependent’ on him.

| 2. | Articles 13(2) and 14 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State by which the latter subjects the grant of guaranteed family benefits to a third-country national, while her situation is as described in point 1 of this operative part, to a length-of-residence requirement of five years although its own nationals are not subject to that requirement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 13(2) and 14 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State by which the latter subjects the grant of guaranteed family benefits to a third-country national, while her situation is as described in point 1 of this operative part, to a length-of-residence requirement of five years although its own nationals are not subject to that requirement.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/26

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-62/12) (1)

(Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Natural person - Taxable supply of a service - Occasional supply - Unconnected with a registered professional activity subject to VAT - Self-employed bailiff)

2013/C 225/41

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Galin Kostov

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 9(1) 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 taxable person — Liability to VAT of a natural person carrying out, on an occasional basis, supplies of taxable services not connected with his profession as a bailiff

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who is already a taxable person for value added tax purposes in respect of his activities as a self-employed bailiff must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ in respect of any other economic activity carried out occasionally, provided that that activity constitutes an activity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-70/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for methacrylates - Duration of the infringement - Presumption of innocence - Statement of reasons - Unlimited jurisdiction - General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment - Proportionality of the fine)

2013/C 225/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH (represented by: F. Wijckmans and M. Visser, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2011 in Case T-208/06 Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission annulling in part Decision C(2006) 2098 final of the Commission of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), which concerned a complex of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices in the methacrylates industry consisting in agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements, exchanging information and participating in discussions to facilitate the infringement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH to pay the costs of these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Malta) — Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited v L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

(Case C-71/12) (1)

(Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Articles 12 and 13 - Administrative charges and fees for rights of use - Charge applicable to mobile telephony operators - National legislation - Method of calculating the charge - Percentage of the costs paid by users)

2013/C 225/43

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Qorti Kostituzzjonali

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited

Defendants: L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — National legislation subjecting mobile telephone operators to a charge — Charge to be paid solely by mobile telephone operators and not by other undertakings offering electronic communications services

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which operators providing mobile telephony services are liable to pay ‘excise’ duty, calculated as a percentage of the charges paid to them by the users of those services, provided the trigger for that duty is not linked to the general authorisation procedure for access to the electronic communications services market but to the use of mobile telephony services provided by the operators and the duty is ultimately borne by the user of those services, which is a matter for the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg)) — Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

(Case C-87/12) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 225/44

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Citizenship of the Union — Right to family reunification for a citizen of the European Union for the benefit of family members who are third-country nationals, where that person has not actually exercised the right of freedom of movement and does not have a right to reside in a Member State other than that of which he holds the nationality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to allow a third-country national to reside in its territory, where that third-country national wishes to reside with a family member who is a European Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he holds the nationality and has never exercised his right of freedom of movement as a Union citizen, provided such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a Union citizen.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/28

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

(Case C-93/12) (1)

(Agriculture - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Common agricultural policy - Aid - Administrative law disputes - Determination of the court with jurisdiction - National criterion - Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

2013/C 225/45

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of the principles of effectiveness and effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of equivalence — Aid scheme of the common agricultural policy — National procedural rule providing that administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the common agricultural policy fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act is located, but that similar disputes of a domestic nature fall within the jurisdiction of the court in whose judicial district the agricultural land in question is located.

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does not preclude a national rule of jurisdiction such as that in Article 133(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks), which results in conferring on a single court all disputes relating to decisions of a national authority responsible for the payment of agricultural support under the European Union common agricultural policy, provided that actions intended to ensure the safeguarding of the rights which individuals derive from European Union law are not conducted in less advantageous conditions than those provided for in respect of actions intended to protect the rights derived from any aid schemes for farmers established under national law, and that jurisdiction rule does not cause individuals procedural problems in terms, inter alia, of the duration of the proceedings, such as to render the exercise of the rights derived from European Union law excessively difficult, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/28

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Granada — Spain) — Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL

(Case C-125/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 199(1)(g) - Voluntary insolvency proceedings - Person liable for payment of tax - Liability of the person who is the recipient of certain transactions - Concept of ‘compulsory sale procedure’)

2013/C 225/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada

Party to the main proceedings

Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada — Interpretation of Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Persons liable for payment of tax — Taxable person who is the recipient of certain transactions — Concept of ‘the supply of immovable property sold by a judgment debtor in a compulsory sale procedure’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that every sale of immovable property by a judgment debtor carried out not only in the course of the liquidation of the debtor’s assets but also in the course of insolvency proceedings occurring before such liquidation comes within the concept of a compulsory sale procedure, provided that such a sale is necessary in order either to settle creditors’ claims or to enable the debtor to re-establish its economic or professional activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-142/12) (1)

(Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 - Cessation of the taxable economic activity - Removal of the taxable person from the VAT register by the tax authorities - Retention of goods on which the VAT became deductible - Taxable amount - Open market value or purchase value - Determination at the time of the transaction - Direct effect of Article 74)

2013/C 225/47

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 December 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Transactions to be treated as the supply of goods for consideration — Cessation of the taxable economic activity of a taxable person, owing to the fact that, by reason of its removal from the value added tax register, that taxable person is no longer able to charge or to deduct value added tax — Method for determining the taxable amount in relation to the assets existing at the time of that removal

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as also covering the cessation of the taxable economic activity as a result of the removal of the taxable person from the value added tax register. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as also covering the cessation of the taxable economic activity as a result of the removal of the taxable person from the value added tax register.

| 2. | Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 is to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which, in the event of the cessation of the taxable economic activity, the taxable amount of the transaction is to be the open market value of the assets in existence at the time of that cessation, unless that value corresponds in practice to the residual value of those goods at that date and account is thus taken of the change in the value of those goods between the date of their acquisition and the date of the cessation of the taxable economic activity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 is to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which, in the event of the cessation of the taxable economic activity, the taxable amount of the transaction is to be the open market value of the assets in existence at the time of that cessation, unless that value corresponds in practice to the residual value of those goods at that date and account is thus taken of the change in the value of those goods between the date of their acquisition and the date of the cessation of the taxable economic activity.

| 3. | Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 has direct effect. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 has direct effect.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo

(Case C-144/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Articles 6 and 17 - Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 24 - Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised - Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)

2013/C 225/48

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) and of Article 17 thereof, in conjunction with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court seised by virtue of the entering of an appearance by the defendant in the absence of any challenge to jurisdiction and of a defence on the merits — Whether applicable in the case of the European order for payment procedure — If so, whether the defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State after having entered an appearance in the same case before a court of that State before which he lodged a statement of opposition to the order for payment and raised arguments on the substance of the case

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin cannot be regarded as constituting the entering of an appearance within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the fact that the defendant has, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case is irrelevant in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/30

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission

(Case C-149/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Plant-protection products - Diphenylamine - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Procedure for the assessment of active substances - Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex - Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)

2013/C 225/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and N. Knight, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, avocat)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 in Case T-71/10 Xeda International and Pace International LLC v Commission, by which that court dismissed an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2009)9262) (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/30

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o.

(Case C-155/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 44 and 47 - Place where taxable transactions are deemed to be carried out - Place of supply for tax purposes - Concept of ‘supply of services connected with immovable property’ - Complex cross-border service relating to the storage of goods)

2013/C 225/50

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) — Interpretation of Articles 44 and 47 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended — Determination of the relevant place for tax purposes — Concept of the supply of services connected with immovable property — Complex cross-border service involving the storage of goods provided to contractual customers established in other Member States or in non-member countries and comprising the admission of goods to warehouses situated in Poland, their shelving, storage, loading and unloading, repackaging and return to the customer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 47 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of a complex storage service, comprising admission of goods to a warehouse, placing them on the appropriate storage shelves, storing them, packaging them, issuing them, unloading and loading them, comes within the scope of that article only if the storage constitutes the principal service of a single transaction and only if the recipients of that service are given a right to use all or part of expressly specific immovable property.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/31

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-169/12) (1)

(Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 66(a) to (c) - Transport and shipping services - Chargeability - Date on which payment is received and no later than 30 days from the date on which the services are supplied - Invoice issued earlier)

2013/C 225/51

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sad Administracyjny (Poland) — Interpretation of Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended — National legislation fixing the time when liability to pay VAT in respect of supplies of transport and shipping services arises on the date when the price is paid and no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even when the invoice is issued earlier

Operative part of the judgment

Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/117/EC of 16 December 2008, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, in respect of transport and shipping services, value added tax is to become chargeable on the date on which payment is received in full or in part, but no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even where the invoice has been issued earlier and specifies a later deadline for payment.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/31

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-183/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings)

2013/C 225/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: P. Moser QC and E. Grieves, Barrister, instructed by H. Miller, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Paasivirta, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents)

Intervener in support of the Commission: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, Agent, E. Regan SC and N. Travers BL)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, by which the General Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on an action seeking the annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20) — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Ayadi v Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Chafiq Ayadi; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Ayadi v Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Chafiq Ayadi;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Chafiq Ayadi’s action for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Chafiq Ayadi’s action for annulment;

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

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/32

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Portugal) — Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

(Case C-186/12) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Restrictions - Joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries - Exclusion of parent companies having their seat in another Member State - No restriction)

2013/C 225/53

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Braga

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impacto Azul Lda

Defendants: BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions on freedom of establishment — National rules excluding the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiary companies for those parent companies having their seat in another Member State

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 excludes the application of the principle of the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries to parent companies having their seat in the territory of another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/32

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-191/12) (1)

(Non-repayment of the entirety of value added tax unduly paid - National legislation precluding repayment of VAT because it has been passed on to a third party - Compensation in the form of aid covering a fraction of the non-deductible VAT - Unjust enrichment)

2013/C 225/54

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria Budapest — Interpretation of European Union law relating to the common system of value added tax — Deduction of input VAT — Aid from State funds for an acquisition of goods, also financing the non deductible VAT on the acquisitions — National legislation precluding repayment of tax on the ground that it has been passed on to a third party

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of repayment of taxes levied in a Member State in infringement of the rules of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude that State from refusing to repay part of the value added tax, the deduction of which had been precluded by a national measure contrary to European Union law, on the ground that that part of the tax had been subsided by aid granted to the taxable person and financed by the European Union and by that State, provided that the economic burden relating to the refusal to deduct value added tax has been completely neutralised, which is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/33

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-193/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Designation of vulnerable zones - Excessive nitrate content - Eutrophication - Obligation of four-yearly revision)

2013/C 225/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) and Annex I thereto — Incomplete identification of vulnerable zones — Excessive nitrate content — Eutrophication — Incorrect four-yearly revision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to designate as vulnerable zones a number of zones characterised by the presence of surface and groundwater bodies which are, or may be, affected by excessive nitrate content and/or eutrophication, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to designate as vulnerable zones a number of zones characterised by the presence of surface and groundwater bodies which are, or may be, affected by excessive nitrate content and/or eutrophication, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, and Annex I thereto;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/33

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz

(Case C-219/12) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(1) and (2) - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Deduction of input tax - Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling - Supply to the network - Remuneration - Electricity production lower than consumption)

2013/C 225/56

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz

In the presence of: Thomas Fuchs

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 4 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) — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Photovoltaic installation for electricity production near a private dwelling without a power storage unit — Sale of the energy produced to a company which resupplies that dwelling with the energy which it requires — Energy production lower than consumption in the long term

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and (2) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a photovoltaic installation on or adjacent to a house which is used as a dwelling, which is designed such that the electricity produced is (i) always less than the electricity privately consumed by its operator and (ii) supplied to the network in exchange for income on a continuing basis, falls within the concept of ‘economic activities’ as defined in that Article.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/34

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-239/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings)

2013/C 225/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (represented by: P. Moser QC and E. Grieves, Barrister, instructed by H. Miller, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents), European Commission, (represented by: E. Paasivirta and G. Valero Jordana, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, by which the General Court held that there was no need to adjudicate on an action seeking partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60) — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim’s action for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim’s action for annulment;

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

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/34

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv v Rodopi-M 91 OOD

(Case C-259/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Belated recording in the accounts and declaration of the cancellation of an invoice - Remedying of the omission - Payment of the tax - State budget - No harm suffered - Administrative penalty)

2013/C 225/58

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Plovdiv

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv

Respondent: Rodopi-M 91 OOD

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Interpretation of Articles 242 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Administrative penalty imposed on the ground of late declaration of the cancellation of an invoice even though the cancellation has subsequently been entered in the accounts and the person concerned has paid the tax that results from the cancelled invoice not entered in the purchase ledger and in the tax return for the tax period in question — Fine equivalent to the total amount of tax not paid in time — Principle of fiscal neutrality

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude the tax authorities of a Member State from imposing upon a taxable person who has not fulfilled within the period prescribed by national legislation his obligation to record in the accounts and to declare matters affecting the calculation of the value added tax for which he is liable a fine equal to the amount of the value added tax not paid within that period where the taxable person has subsequently remedied the omission and paid all the tax due, together with interest. It is for the national court to determine, in view of Articles 242 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, whether in the light of the circumstances of the main proceedings — in particular the period within which the irregularity was rectified, the seriousness of that irregularity, and the presence of any evasion or any circumvention of the applicable legislation that is attributable to the taxable person — the amount of the penalty imposed goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring the correct collection of tax and preventing evasion.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/35

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc.

(Case C-269/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Anti-doping legislation - Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission - Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ - That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased)

2013/C 225/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Guillermo Cañas (represented by: Y. Bonnard and C. Aguet, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents), World Anti-doping Agency (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Cooper, solicitor, N. Chesaites, barrister), ATP Tour, Inc.

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2012 in Case T-508/09 Cañas v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009)7809 of 12 October 2009 in Case COMP/39471, rejecting for lack of Community interest a complaint concerning an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the World Anti-doping Agency, the ATP Tour Inc. and by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Errors of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ — Interest in bringing proceedings ceased to exist during the proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Guillermo Cañas to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Guillermo Cañas to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the World Anti-doping Agency to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the World Anti-doping Agency to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/35

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge

(Case C-271/12) (1)

(Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Right to deduct input tax - Obligations of the taxable person - Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices - Omission of mandatory particulars - Refusal of the right to deduct - Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced - Correcting invoices - Right to refund of VAT - Principle of neutrality)

2013/C 225/60

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens

Respondent: État belge

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) — Interpretation of the rules relating to value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Obligation on the part of the taxable person — Right to deduct VAT subject to possession of an invoice which must contain certain particulars — Concept of material particular — Refusal of the right to deduct — Subsequent provision of information as evidence of the occurrence, nature and amount of the services provided — Compatibility with European Union law of national case-law which refuses the right to deduct if mandatory particulars are not entered on the invoice — Interpretation of the principle of neutrality — Effect of inaccuracies in invoices on the obligation of the State to repay the VAT levied.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The provisions 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, as amended by Council Directive 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the right to deduct value added tax may be refused to taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, even if those invoices are supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, nature and amount of the transactions invoiced after such a refusal decision was adopted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The provisions 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, as amended by Council Directive 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the right to deduct value added tax may be refused to taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, even if those invoices are supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, nature and amount of the transactions invoiced after such a refusal decision was adopted.

| 2. | The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude the tax authority from refusing to refund the value added tax paid by a company providing services, in the case where the exercise of the right to deduct the value added tax levied on those services has been denied to the companies receiving those services by reason of the irregularities confirmed in the invoices issued by that service-providing company. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude the tax authority from refusing to refund the value added tax paid by a company providing services, in the case where the exercise of the right to deduct the value added tax levied on those services has been denied to the companies receiving those services by reason of the irregularities confirmed in the invoices issued by that service-providing company.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/36

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA

(Case C-287/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Loan granted by the Italian Republic to the airline company Alitalia - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible - Sale of assets of Alitalia - Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Interested party - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Competence - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 225/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros,)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and D. Grespan), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA, (represented by: G. Bellitti, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 in Case T-123/09 Ryanair v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking, first, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 6743 of 12 November 2008 on the loan of EUR 300 million granted by Italy to Alitalia (Aid No C 26/08) (ex NN 31/08) (OJ 2009 L 52, p. 3), in so far as that decision did not order the recovery of the aid from Alitalia’s successors, and, second, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008 declaring that the procedure for selling off the assets of the Alitalia airline company, in the context of the extraordinary administrative procedure set to lead to the liquidation of that airline, does not constitute State aid, provided that the Italian authorities respect their commitments to ensure that the transactions will be carried out at the market price (Aid N 510/2008) (OJ 2009 C 46, p. 6)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair Ltd to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair Ltd to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA;

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

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/36

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker

(Case C-320/12) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 4(4)(g) - Trade marks - Conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a trade mark - Refusal of registration or invalidation - Concept of ‘bad faith’ of the applicant - Whether the applicant knows of the existence of a foreign mark)

2013/C 225/62

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd

Defendant: Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Refusal of registration or invalidity of a trade mark — Concept of bad faith — Applicant who knew or should have known of a foreign trade mark when filing the application for registration — Cancellation of the registration of a plastic milk bottle as a trade mark on the ground that the applicant knew at the time of filing his application of the earlier similar mark used abroad by a competing company

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘bad faith’, within the meaning of that provision, is an autonomous concept of European Union law which must be given a uniform interpretation in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘bad faith’, within the meaning of that provision, is an autonomous concept of European Union law which must be given a uniform interpretation in the European Union.

| 2. | Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to permit the conclusion that the person making the application for registration of a trade mark is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision, it is necessary to take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration. The fact that the person making that application knows or should know that a third party is using a mark abroad at the time of filing his application which is liable to be confused with the mark whose registration has been applied for is not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the person making that application is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to permit the conclusion that the person making the application for registration of a trade mark is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision, it is necessary to take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration. The fact that the person making that application knows or should know that a third party is using a mark abroad at the time of filing his application which is liable to be confused with the mark whose registration has been applied for is not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the person making that application is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision.

| 3. | Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow Member States to introduce a system of specific protection of foreign marks which differs from the system established by that provision and which is based on the fact that the person making the application for registration of a mark knew or should have known of a foreign mark. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow Member States to introduce a system of specific protection of foreign marks which differs from the system established by that provision and which is based on the fact that the person making the application for registration of a mark knew or should have known of a foreign mark.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/37

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu — Portugal) — Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT)

(Case C-342/12) (1)

(Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Articles 6 and 7 - Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate - Article 17 - Security of processing - Working time - Record of working time - Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions - Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation)

2013/C 225/63

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA

Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal do Trabalho de Viseu — Interpretation of Article 2 and Article 17(1) 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) — Concept of personal data — Data registered in a system recording the working time of workers of a company

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(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 is to be interpreted as meaning that a record of working time, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which indicates, in relation to each worker, the times when working hours begin and end, as well as the corresponding breaks and intervals, is included within the concept of ‘personal data’, within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(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 is to be interpreted as meaning that a record of working time, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which indicates, in relation to each worker, the times when working hours begin and end, as well as the corresponding breaks and intervals, is included within the concept of ‘personal data’, within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 6(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires an employer to make the record of working time available to the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions so as to allow its immediate consultation, provided that this obligation is necessary for the purposes of the performance by that authority of its task of monitoring the application of the legislation relating to working conditions, in particular as regards working time. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires an employer to make the record of working time available to the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions so as to allow its immediate consultation, provided that this obligation is necessary for the purposes of the performance by that authority of its task of monitoring the application of the legislation relating to working conditions, in particular as regards working time.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/38

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-345/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/91/EC - Energy performance of buildings - Article 7(1) and (2), Article 9, Article 10 and Article 15(1) - Incorrect transposition - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period - Directive 2010/31/EU - Article 29)

2013/C 225/64

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by A. De Stefano, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 7(1) and (2), Article 10 and Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65), read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to lay down an obligation to present, when buildings are sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate, in accordance with Articles 7 and 10 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, and in having failed to notify the European Commission of the measures transposing Article 9 of Directive 2002/91, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (2), Article 10 and Article 15(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to lay down an obligation to present, when buildings are sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate, in accordance with Articles 7 and 10 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, and in having failed to notify the European Commission of the measures transposing Article 9 of Directive 2002/91, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (2), Article 10 and Article 15(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings;

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/38

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil constitutionnel — France) — Jeremy F v Premier ministre

(Case C-168/13 PPU) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Speciality rule - Application for extension of the European arrest warrant on which the surrender was based or for onward surrender to another Member State - Decision of the judicial authority of the executing Member State to give consent - Appeal with suspensive effect - Whether permitted)

2013/C 225/65

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil constitutionnel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jeremy F

Defendant: Premier ministre

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil constitutionnel — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 28 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Extension of the effects of a European arrest warrant — Existence in the requested Member State of an appeal against the decision of the executing judicial authority, in this case the indictment division of a court of appeal — Period of 30 days

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding Member States from providing for an appeal suspending execution of the decision of the judicial authority which rules, within 30 days from receipt of the request, on giving consent either to the prosecution, sentencing or detention with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order of a person for an offence committed prior to his surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant, other than that for which he was surrendered, or to the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State, pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his surrender, provided that the final decision is adopted within the time-limits laid down in Article 17 of the Framework Decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/39

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto — Portugal) — Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

(Case C-229/10) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Civil liability of the insured person - Victim’s contribution to loss or injury - Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

2013/C 225/66

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto — Interpretation of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360); Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17); Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33, and in particular of Article 1a thereof); Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65); and Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14) — Provision of national law which, in the case of an accident caused by the conduct of the pedestrian alone who is the victim of the accident, excludes the liability for risk posed by the use of motor vehicles, and which allows the right to compensation of accident victims to be excluded or reduced, where there is concurrent fault, because the victim has contributed to the loss.

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), and the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/39

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA v European Commission, Portuguese Republic

(Case C-242/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Articles 149 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Reduction of financial assistance - No need to adjudicate - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 225/67

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA (represented by: N. Ruiz, advogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, L. Flynn and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-401/07 Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission by which that court dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Decision C(2007) 3772 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the global grant for local development in Portugal by Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995, and a claim for an order against the Commission to pay the final balance of the financial assistance under Article 238 EC

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings.

| 3. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/40

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal)) — Serafim Gomes Oliveira v Lusitânia — Companhia de Seguros, SA

(Case C-362/11) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Victim’s contribution to loss or injury - Limitation of the right to compensation)

2013/C 225/68

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Santa maria da Feira

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Serafim Gomes Oliveira

Defendant: Lusitânia — Companhia de Seguros, SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling –Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira — Interpretation of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1), Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33, in particular, Article 1a thereof), Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65) and Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14) — Accident between a motor vehicle and a bicycle — Cyclist responsible for less than 20 % of the fault — Proportional reduction of the right to compensation — Admissibility

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/41

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend

(Case C-413/11) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight - Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union)

2013/C 225/69

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant: Thomas Amend

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8(1)(a) and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Right to compensation in the event of delay — Limits of the jurisdiction of the Court — Scope of the interpretation given in the judgment of the Court of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others, extending, by analogy, the right to compensation to delay to a flight

Operative part of the order

The interpretation given by the Court to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, to the effect that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time initially scheduled, even though, first, Article 6 of that regulation, relating to delay, provides only for the application of measures of assistance and of care and, secondly, reference is made to Article 7 of that regulation, relating to the right to compensation, only in situations of denied boarding and flight cancellation, has no bearing on the principle of the separation of powers in the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 9.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/41

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

(Case C-486/11) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2005/14/EC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Victim’s contribution to loss or injury - Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

2013/C 225/70

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling -Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Interpretation of Article 1a of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — National provisions allowing the exclusion of the right of victims to compensation for accidents on the basis of an individual assessment of their contribution to the accident

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/42

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia and Others v Comune di Pavia

(Case C-564/11) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) and (d) - Services - Study and technical and scientific consultancy for the purposes of drawing up the measures forming a municipal town and country planning programme - Contract concluded between two public entities, one of which is a university - Public entity capable of being classified as an economic operator)

2013/C 225/71

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Brescia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Como, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Cremona, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecco, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lodi, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Milano, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pavia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Varese

Respondent: Comune di Pavia

In the presence of: Università degli Studi di Pavia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Article 2 and Article 28 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), and of Categories 8 and 12 of Annex II thereto — Award of a public procurement contract outwith the procurement procedures provided for under that directive — Contract entered into by two public administrative authorities, under which the supplier of services is a university and the consideration is in essence non-remunerative

Operative part of the order

European Union public procurement law precludes national legislation under which public entities may, without issuing an invitation to tender, enter into a contract establishing mutual cooperation, where — this being for the referring court to determine — the purpose of such a contract is not to ensure the performance of a public service task incumbent upon all those entities, or where that contract is not governed solely by considerations and requirements relating to the pursuit of objectives in the public interest, or where that contract is of such a nature as to place a private provider of services in a position of advantage vis-à-vis its competitors.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/42

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-584/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Plant protection products - Active substance trifluralin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision 1999/468/EC - Article 5)

2013/C 225/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, advocaat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-475/07 Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2007) 4282) (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S and Dow AgroSciences GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S and Dow AgroSciences GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/43

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah v Three-N-Products Private Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-14/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Application for registration of the Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 225/73

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (represented by: C. Jäger, Rechtsanwältin), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10 THREE-N-PRODUCTS PRIVATE v OHIM — SHAH (AYUURI NATURAL), by which that Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 June 2010 in Case R 1005/2009-4 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the application for registration of the word mark ‘AYUURI NATURAL’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative and word marks including the word element ‘AYUR’ in respect of goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Sheilesh Shah and Mr Akhil Shah shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Sheilesh Shah and Mr Akhil Shah shall pay the costs.

| 3. | The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/43

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Domingos Freitas, Maria Adilia Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

(Case C-96/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Victim’s contribution to loss or injury - Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

2013/C 225/74

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Domingos Freitas, Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling -Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Interpretation of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1), Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33, in particular, Article 1a thereof), Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65) and Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14) — National provisions allowing the exclusion or limitation of the right of victims to compensation for accidents on the basis of an assessment of his contribution to their own loss or injury — Accident between an automobile and a cyclist caused by the latter

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/44

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Suzuki Motor Corp.

(Case C-260/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark Swift GTi - Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/75

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Volkswagen AG (represented by: S. Risthaus, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Suzuki Motor Corp.

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09 Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi) by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp. — Word sign SWIFT GTi — Likelihood of confusion with the word mark GTI — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

| 2. | Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs of these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/44

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Novartis AG

(Case C-268/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ZYDUS - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ZIMBUS - Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

2013/C 225/76

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Novartis AG (represented by: N. Hebeis, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-288/08 Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS), by which that court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the word mark ‘ZYDUS’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 for annulment of Decision R 1092/2007-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 May 2008 rejecting in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing in part registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ‘ZIMBUS’ for goods in Class 5 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Cadila Healthcare Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Cadila Healthcare Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/45

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — You Q BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Apple Corps Ltd

(Case C-294/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BEATLE’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks containing the word elements ‘BEATLES’ and ‘THE BEATLES’ - Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2013/C 225/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: You Q BV (represented by: G.S.C.M. van Roeyen, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and I. Harrington, acting as Agents), Apple Corps Ltd (represented by A. Terry, Solicitor, and F. Clark, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 in Case T-369/10 You-Q v OHIM — Apple Corps (Beatle), by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark including the word element ‘BEATLE’ for goods in Class 12 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 31 May 2010 in Case R 1276/2009-2, which annulled the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks including the word elements ‘BEATLES’ and ‘THE BEATLES’ in respect of goods in Classes 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 41

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | You-Q BV shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

You-Q BV shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/45

---

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Novontech-Zala kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

(Case C-324/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Opposition lodged out of time - Article 20 - Review in exceptional cases - No ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances)

2013/C 225/78

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novontech-Zala kft

Defendant: LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 20(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) — Opposition to a European order for payment made after the time limit as a result of an error on the part of the lawyer of the party concerned — Possible existence of a case of force majeure or of extraordinary circumstances

Operative part of the order

The failure to observe the time-limit for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, by reason of the negligence of the defendant’s representative, does not justify a review of that order for payment, since such a failure to observe the time-limit does not constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(1)(b) or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/46

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Mizuno KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-341/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Community trade mark - Figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender - Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ - Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal)

2013/C 225/79

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mizuno KK (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 May 2012 in Case T-101/11 Mizuno v OHIM — GOLFINO (G), whereby the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 821/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Mizuno KK and Golfino AG — Figurative sign comprising the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender — Likelihood of confusion with a figurative mark comprising the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mizuno KK shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mizuno KK shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/46

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lactimilk SA

(Case C-346/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Community word mark MILRAM - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks RAM)

2013/C 225/80

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (represented by: W. Berlit, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent), Lactimilk SA (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, abogado)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-546/10 Nordmilch v OHIM — LACTIMILK (MILRAM) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (joined cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/47

---

Order of the Court of 20 June 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo (Italy)) — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo and Comune di Barisciano

(Case C-352/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) and (d) - Services - Support activities relating to the drawing up of a reconstruction plan for certain parts of the territory of a municipality damaged by an earthquake - Contract concluded between two public entities, one a university - Public entity likely to be classified as an economic operator - Extraordinary circumstances)

2013/C 225/81

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

Defendants: Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo and Comune di Barisciano

In the presence of: Università degli Studi Chieti Pescara — Dipartimento Scienze e Storia den’ Architettura and Scuola di Archtettura e Design Vittoria (SAD) dell’Università degli Studi di Camerino

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Articles 2 and 28 of and Annex II, categories 8 and 12 to 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) — Award of the contract outwith the procedures for the award of contracts laid down by the directive — Contract concluded between two public administrations, under which the service provider is a university and the other party is clearly not of a remunerative nature — Supply of services consisting of the carrying out of studies, analyses and planning for the reconstruction of the historic centre of two municipalities destroyed by an earthquake — Methods of award of the contract justified by specific public interests connected with the earthquake

Operative part of the order

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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009, precludes national legislation which authorises the conclusion, without recourse to competition, of a contract by which public entities institute cooperation between themselves where — which it is for the referring court to ascertain — such a contract is not intended to ensure the implementation of a public service task common to those entities, where it is not exclusively governed by considerations and requirements proper to the pursuit of objectives of public interest or where it is such as to place a private service provider in a privileged position compared with its competitors. The fact that such a contract arises in an extraordinary situation can be taken into consideration only in so far as the contracting authority ascertains that the conditions for application of Article 31(1)(c) of that directive are met.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/47

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — Asa sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-354/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Word mark FEMIFERAL - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier word and figurative mark feminatal)

2013/C 225/82

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Asa sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Chimiak, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2012 in Case T-110/11 Asa v OHIM — Merck (FEMIFERAL), by which the General Court dismissed as unfounded the action brought by Asa sp. z o.o., applicant for the word mark ‘FEMIFERAL’, seeking the annulment of Decision R 0182/2010-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 19 November 2010, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division, which rejected the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘Feminatal’ and of the national figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘feminatal’ for goods classified in Class 5 — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Asa sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Asa sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/48

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Harald Wohlfahrt v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero SpA

(Case C-357/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) - Word sign ‘Kindertraum’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Kinder)

2013/C 225/83

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Harald Wohlfahrt (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), Ferrero SpA (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2012 in Case T-580/10 Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum) by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt — Registration of the word sign ‘Kindertraum’ for goods in Classes 16 and 28 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier word mark ‘Kinder’ — Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 42(2), and 75, first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Harald Wohlfahrt shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Harald Wohlfahrt shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/48

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-368/12) (1)

(Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Recovery of aid - Assessment of the validity of an EU act - Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 225/84

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Adiamix

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — Validity of Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France), by decision of 26 July 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/48

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Arav Holding Srl v H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-379/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark H.EICH - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier figurative mark H- SILVIAN HEACH - Refusal of registration)

2013/C 225/85

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Arav Holding Srl (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: H.Eich Srl (represented by: D. Mainini, T. Rubin, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, avvocati), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl (Case R 1411/2009-1) — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect appraisal of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Arav Holding Srl shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Arav Holding Srl shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/49

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — I Marchi Italiani Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Osra SA

(Case C-381/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Community mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 - Earlier national mark BASILE - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 53(2) - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1) of that regulation - Likelihood of confusion)

2013/C 225/86

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: I Marchi Italiani Srl (represented by: L. Militerni and G. Militerni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent), Osra SA

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 in Case T-133/09 I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952) by which that court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 (Case R 502/2008-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Osra SA and I Marchi Italiani Srl — Misapplication of Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Infringement of the principle of good faith — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Prerequisites for the limitation period to run — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | I Marchi Italiani Srl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

I Marchi Italiani Srl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/49

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-393/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark HELLIM - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark HALLOUMI - Opposition dismissed)

2013/C 225/87

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (represented by: C. Milbradt and A. Schwarz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case T-534/10 Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG — Likelihood of confusion — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/50

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-397/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible - No failure to state reasons - Imprecise ground of appeal - Ground of appeal seeking reconsideration of the application at first instance)

2013/C 225/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (represented by: E Deshoulières, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11 Schiocchet v Council and Commission, by which the General Court rejected as manifestly unfounded in law an application for compensation of a loss allegedly suffered due to the application of the system laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1) — Conditions on which an action for compensation may be brought — Wrongful act of an institution

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/50

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Bianca Brandes v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-415/12) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Framework agreement on part-time work - Full-time worker having been unable to exercise her entitlement to paid annual leave during the reference period - Move of that worker to a scheme of part-time work - National provision or practice providing for a reduction in the number of days of paid leave previously accumulated thereby to be in proportion to the number of days of part-time work per week)

2013/C 225/89

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Nienburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bianca Brandes

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Interpretation of Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 10) — Employee changing from full-time to part-time work — Legislation of a Member State allowing, in such a case, a redistribution of unused entitlement to annual leave accrued during full-time work which results in a reduction in the number of leave days

Operative part of the order

The relevant European Union law, in particular, Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Clause 4(2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national provisions or a national practice, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which the number of days of paid annual leave which a full-time worker was unable to exercise during the reference period is, due to the fact that that worker moved to a scheme of part-time work, subject to a reduction which is proportional to the difference between the number of days of work per week carried out by that worker before and after such a move to part-time work.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/51

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia v European Commission

(Case C-418/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public service contracts - Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds - Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the appellant - Refusal of the Commission to open an infringement or financial adjustment procedure against Romania)

2013/C 225/90

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia (represented by: C. Malinconico and A. Gigliola, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and P. van Nuffel, agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2012 in Case T-329/11 TME v European Commission, by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, first, an application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 April 2011 concerning the complaint lodged by TME in connection with the failure on the part of Romania to fulfil its obligations under European Union law in the context of the project ‘Bucharest Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation: Stage I ISPA 2004/RO/16/P/PE/003-03’, linked to the restructuring of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, and, second, a claim for damages — Misinterpretation of the subject of the action — Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for External Actions — Commission under an obligation to issue a reasoned opinion in the event of irregularities or breaches arising in the course of the tendering procedure

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/51

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v European Commission, Italian Republic

(Case C-436/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid to undertakings established in the territory of Venice and Chioggia)

2013/C 225/91

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veglianiti, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents), Italian Republic

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case T-264/00 Compagnia Generale delle Acque v Commission, by which that court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws No 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — Whether intra Community trade is affected — Impact on competition — Extent of control — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/52

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza — Italy) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Ciesse srl

(Case C-468/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure - Articles 53(2), 93(a), and 99 - Directive 200817/EC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Article 5(1)(c) - Scope - Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)

2013/C 225/92

Language of the case: Italian

Referring Court

Tribunale di Cosenza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) di Cosenza

Defendant: Ciesse srl, in liquidation

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza — Interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11) — Imposition of an annual fee for entry in the register of companies kept by the local chambers of commerce — Amount of the annual duty determined in a more favourable manner for individual undertakings, agricultural partnerships (‘societá semplici’) and law firms than for other economic undertakings

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as not precluding the charging of an annual duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, paid to chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture by all undertakings registered or noted in the register kept by those chambers and calculated, in general, on the basis of their turnover, but fixed on a flat-rate basis for certain categories of undertakings, and, in particular, for undertakings individually owned or managed by natural persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/52

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fidenato Giorgio

(Case C-542/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2002/53/EC - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered in the common catalogue - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Article 20 - Existing products - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 26a - Measures to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms)

2013/C 225/93

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy)

Criminal proceedings against

Fidenato Giorgio

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Pordenone — Interpretation of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) — National legislation making the cultivation of GMOs, entered in the common catalogue of varieties, subject to an authorisation procedure to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms in other crops (principle of coexistence)

Operative part of the order

European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that the cultivation of genetically modified organisms such as maize varieties MON 810 cannot be made subject to a national authorisation procedure, where the use and marketing of those varieties are authorised under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, and where those varieties have been entered in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species provided for in Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, as amended by Regulation No 1829/2003. Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Directive 2008/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from opposing the cultivation on its territory of such genetically modified organisms on the ground that obtaining a national authorisation would constitute a coexistence measure to avoid the accidental present of genetically modified organisms in other crops.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/53

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Erusalim Baleanu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-311/12: Baleanu v Commission

(Case C-566/12 P)

2013/C 225/94

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Erusalim Baleanu (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/53

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Adrian Barliba against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-312/12: Barliba v Commission

(Case C-567/12 P)

2013/C 225/95

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Adrian Barliba (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/53

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Doru Cristian Ioanovici against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-313/12: Ioanovici v Commission

(Case C-568/12 P)

2013/C 225/96

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Doru Cristian Ioanovici (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/53

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Emil Micsunescu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12: Micsunescu v Commission

(Case C-569/12 P)

2013/C 225/97

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Emil Micsunescu (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/53

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Alexandru Octavian Concal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-320/12: Concal v Commission

(Case C-570/12 P)

2013/C 225/98

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alexandru Octavian Concal (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/54

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Gena Ivanova Cholakova v Osmo Rayonno Upravlienie pri Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti

(Case C-14/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Articles 21(1) TFEU, 67 TFEU and 72 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - National rules permitting a person to be detained in order to establish his identity - Lack of connection with European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2013/C 225/99

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gena Ivanova Cholakova

Defendant: Osmo Rayonno Upravlienie pri Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 21(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 67 TFEU and 72 TFEU and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 45(1) of the Charter — Citizenship of the European Union — Free movement of persons — Derogations — National rules permitting a person to be detained by the police in order to establish his identity when that person refuses or is unable to prove his identity — Detention of a maximum of 24 hours — Check not justified on grounds of public order, prevention of criminal activity or domestic security — Discretionary power of the police — Lack of obligation to assess the need to establish the person’s identity

Operative part of the order

It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) by decision of 17 December 2012 (Case C-14/13).

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/54

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy)) — T

(Case C-73/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - None - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2013/C 225/100

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Legal aid — National legislation providing that counsel’s fees may not exceed the average amounts applied in accordance with the professional rates in force where the client has been granted legal aid

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/54

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza

(Case C-106/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of European Union law - None - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2013/C 225/101

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale

Defendants: Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Articles 17 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to property — National legislation allowing local administrative authorities to prohibit an owner from selling a part of his building without prior authorisation

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.05.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/55

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Hardimpex Kft (in liquidation) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-444/12)

2013/C 225/102

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest Municipal Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hardimpex Kft (in liquidation)

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

Question referred

Must Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a tax authority from refusing a taxable person the right to deduct from the amount of VAT which it owes the amount of VAT paid or to be paid on a supply of goods to it, because an earlier transaction in the chain of supply was irregular under the VAT legislation or because that taxable person can be criticised for having failed to check the origin of the goods featuring in the invoices issued by its supplier, without the tax authority demonstrating to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person knew or should have known of that irregularity?

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/55

---

Appeal brought on 18 October 2012 by Plamen Simov against the order of the General Court delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Plamen Simov v European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-465/12 P)

2013/C 225/103

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Plamen Simov

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria

By order of 21 March 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the appeal manifestly inadmissible.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/55

---

Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. against the judgment delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-587/10 Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. v Commission

(Case C-471/12 P)

2013/C 225/104

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Appellant: Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. (represented by D. Komlensky and P. Komljenovic, odvetnika)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 20 June 2013, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for legal aid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for legal aid.

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 3. | Orders Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. to bear its own costs.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Rafael Faet Oltra against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Rafael Faet Oltra v European Ombudsman

(Case C-535/12 P)

2013/C 225/105

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Rafael Faet Oltra (represented by: R. Faet Oltra, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

By order of 6 June 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer (C-436/11), Ekkerhard Schauβ (C-437/11) v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA (C-436/11), Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (C-437/11)

(Joined Cases C-436/11 and C-437/11) (1)

2013/C 225/106

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2013 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA

(Case C-594/11) (1)

2013/C 225/107

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 12 June 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-29/12) (1)

2013/C 225/108

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-76/12) (1)

2013/C 225/109

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Edgar Brück v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse

(Case C-126/12) (1)

2013/C 225/110

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany supported by the Slovak Republic

(Case C-146/12) (1)

2013/C 225/111

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/57

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helmut Butz, Christel Bachmann-Butz, Frederike Butz v Société Air France SA

(Case C-212/12) (1)

2013/C 225/112

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/57

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

(Case C-213/12) (1)

2013/C 225/113

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/57

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, trading under the name ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Case C-227/12) (1)

2013/C 225/114

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/57

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 27 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — JS v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (The Czech social security administration)

(Case C-253/12) (1)

2013/C 225/115

Language of the case: Czech

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

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/57

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-308/12) (1)

2013/C 225/116

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/57

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-330/12) (1)

2013/C 225/117

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/57

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-331/12) (1)

2013/C 225/118

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2013 — Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blueshore Management SA

(Case C-392/12) (1)

2013/C 225/119

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-406/12) (1)

2013/C 225/120

Language of the case: Slovene

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

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-407/12) (1)

2013/C 225/121

Language of the case: Slovene

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

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikom Deutsche Telekabel GmbH previously Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH

(Case C-416/12) (1)

2013/C 225/122

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vermop Salmon GmbH

(Case C-432/12 P) (1)

2013/C 225/123

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.

(Case C-496/12) (1)

2013/C 225/124

Language of the case: Slovak

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-513/12) (1)

2013/C 225/125

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-538/12) (1)

2013/C 225/126

Language of the case: Slovene

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

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

(Case C-545/12) (1)

2013/C 225/127

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-572/12) (1)

2013/C 225/128

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2013 — Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV v European Commission

(Case C-585/12) (1)

2013/C 225/129

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Société Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-618/12) (1)

2013/C 225/130

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Markus Weiss v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-68/13) (1)

2013/C 225/131

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-158/13) (1)

2013/C 225/132

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

---

General Court

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/60

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-267/07) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Clearance of accounts - Expenditure excluded from financing - Excessive delay in the assessment by the Commission of the communications sent pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 - Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable time)

2013/C 225/133

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/327/EC of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year (OJ 2007 L 122, p. 51).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2007/327/EC of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year in that that the Commission charged to the Italian Republic 50 % of the financial consequences of the failure to recover with respect to the following cases of irregularities: Coprap (IT/1987/001), Tabacchi Levante (IT/1987/002), Casearia Sarda (IT/1991/001), Beca (IT/1994/009), Soc.Coop.Super (IT/1995/003/A), Vinicola Magna (IT/1995/005/A), Eurotrade (IT/1995/015/A), COASO — Italiana Tabacchi (IT/1995/016/A), Ionia (IT/1995/017/A), Beca (IT/1995/018), Addeo Fruit (IT/1995/021), Quaranta (IT/1996/003), D’Apolito (IT/1996/007), Sibillo (IT/1996/016), Agrocom (IT/1996/019), Procaccini (IT/1996/020), Addeo Fruit (IT/1996/023), Mediterrane Vini (IT/1996/001), Oleificio Centro Italia (IT/1996/029), Procaccini (IT/1997/002), Soc.Coop.Super (IT/1997/006/A), Savict (IT/1997/01), Agricola S. Giuseppe (IT/1997/012), Terra D’Oro (IT/1997/017/A), Toscana Tabacchi (IT/1997/018). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2007/327/EC of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year in that that the Commission charged to the Italian Republic 50 % of the financial consequences of the failure to recover with respect to the following cases of irregularities: Coprap (IT/1987/001), Tabacchi Levante (IT/1987/002), Casearia Sarda (IT/1991/001), Beca (IT/1994/009), Soc.Coop.Super (IT/1995/003/A), Vinicola Magna (IT/1995/005/A), Eurotrade (IT/1995/015/A), COASO — Italiana Tabacchi (IT/1995/016/A), Ionia (IT/1995/017/A), Beca (IT/1995/018), Addeo Fruit (IT/1995/021), Quaranta (IT/1996/003), D’Apolito (IT/1996/007), Sibillo (IT/1996/016), Agrocom (IT/1996/019), Procaccini (IT/1996/020), Addeo Fruit (IT/1996/023), Mediterrane Vini (IT/1996/001), Oleificio Centro Italia (IT/1996/029), Procaccini (IT/1997/002), Soc.Coop.Super (IT/1997/006/A), Savict (IT/1997/01), Agricola S. Giuseppe (IT/1997/012), Terra D’Oro (IT/1997/017/A), Toscana Tabacchi (IT/1997/018).

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay four fifths of its own costs and four fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay four fifths of its own costs and four fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the costs incurred by the Italian Republic. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the costs incurred by the Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/60

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Fluorsid and Minmet v Commission

(Case T-404/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - World market in aluminium fluoride - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Out of time - Inadmissibility - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Evidence of the infringement - Rights of defence - Definition of the relevant market - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - 2006 Guidelines on fines)

2013/C 225/134

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Fluorsid SpA (Assemini, Italy); and Minmet financing Co. (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Vasques and F. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, C. Cattabriga and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3043 of 25 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81[EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39.180 — Aluminium fluoride), concerning a worldwide price-fixing and market-sharing cartel on the world aluminium fluoride market and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fluorsid SpA and Minmet financing Co. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fluorsid SpA and Minmet financing Co. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/61

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Spar Österreichische Warenhandels v Commission

(Case T-405/08) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Markets for everyday consumer goods - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Commitments - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 225/135

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented initially by A.-H. Bischke, S. Brack and D. Bräunlich, then by A.-H. Bischke and D. Bräunlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and O. Weber, then by S. Noë and N. von Lingen, agents, and by M. Buntscheck, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by H. Wollmann, G. Drauz and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 23 June 2008 declaring the merger whereby Billa AG acquired sole control of Adeg österreich Handels AG compatible with the common market (Case COMP/M.5047 — REWE/ADEG), subject to the proposed commitments being met, pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Billa AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Billa AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/61

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — ICF v Commission

(Case T-406/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - World market in aluminium fluoride - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Evidence of the infringement - Rights of defence - Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on fines - Euro-Mediterranean Agreement)

2013/C 225/136

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented: initially by M. van der Woude and T. Hennen and subsequently by P. Wytinck and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, K. Mojzesowicz and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3043 of 25 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81[EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39.180 — Aluminium fluoride), concerning a worldwide price-fixing and market-sharing cartel on the world aluminium fluoride market and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Industries chimiques du fluor to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industries chimiques du fluor to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/61

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Morte Navarro v Parliament

(Case T-280/09) (1)

(Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action on the petition - Action for annulment - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)

2013/C 225/137

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Carlos Morte Navarro (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. González Buitrón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Gorlitz and P. López-Carceller, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 5 May 2009 to take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 17 December 2008 (petition No 1818/2008).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr José Carlos Morte Navarro to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr José Carlos Morte Navarro to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/62

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-509/09) (1)

(Fisheries - Financial contribution for the implementation of control and surveillance systems - Decision not to reimburse expenditure incurred for the purchase of two Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV) - Article 296 EC - Directive 93/36/EEC - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 225/138

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented: initially by L. Inez Fernandes, A. Trindade Mimoso and A. Miranda Boavida, and subsequently by I. Inez Fernandes, H. Leitão and V. Coelho, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision of 14 October 2009 declaring ineligible for European Union financial support under Commission Decision 2002/978/EC of 10 December 2002 on the eligibility of expenditure on a number of operations to be incurred by certain Member States in 2002 in implementing the control, inspection and surveillance systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 2002 L 338, p. 33) expenditure associated with the purchase of two Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV), to be used partly for the control and surveillance of fishing activities.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/62

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS)

(Case T-214/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DIVINUS - Earlier national figurative mark MOSELLAND Divinum - Existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier right - Proof)

2013/C 225/139

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft (Bernkastel-Kues, Germany) (represented by: M. Dippelhofer, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, S. Schäffner, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Renta Siete, SL (Albacete, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft and Renta Siete, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/63

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — DHL International v OHIM — Service Point Solutions (SERVICEPOINT)

(Case T-218/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SERVICEPOINT - Earlier Community marks ServicePoint and earlier national marks - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/140

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DHL International (Bonn, Germany) (represented: initially by K.-U. Jonas and J. Bogatz, then M. Viefhues, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Service Point Solutions, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented: initially by E. Zamora Martinez, then C. Osterrieth, T. Schmitz and A. Doepner, and finally I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2012 (Case R 62/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Service Point Solutions, SA and SHL Operations BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders DHL International GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DHL International GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/63

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-384/10) (1)

(Cohesion fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Projects concerning water supply to settlements in the Guadiana river basin in the Andévalo area, drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir river basin and water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga - Partial withdrawal of financial assistance - Public works and services contracts - ‘Work’ - Split of the procurement - Determination of the financial corrections - Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation No 1164/94 - Proportionality)

2013/C 225/141

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J. M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, and subsequently by A. Rubio González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, D. Kukovec and B. Conte, acting as Agents, assisted initially by J. Rivas Andrés, X. García García, lawyers, and M. Vilarasau Slade, lawyer, and subsequently by Rivas Andrés and X. García García)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4147 of 30 June 2010, reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following (groups of) projects: ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133), ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.16.C.PE.066) and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/64

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Nencini v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10) (1)

(Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Travel and parliamentary assistance expenses - Recovery of undue payments - Limitation period - Reasonable period - Rights of the defence - Principle of audi alteram partem - Proportionality)

2013/C 225/142

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Riccardo Nencini (Barberino del Mugello, Italy) (represented by: F. Bertini and M. Chiti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by N. Lorenz, D. Moore and A. Caiola, and subsequently by N. Lorenz, D. Moore and G. Ricci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications, primarily, for annulment brought against the Decisions of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 16 July 2010 and 7 October 2010 relating to the recovery of certain sums received by the applicant, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses unduly paid, the Debit Notes of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 312331 of 4 August 2010 and No 315653 of 13 October 2010, and any other related and/or prior acts and, in the alternative, to remit the applications to the Secretary General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum in respect of which recovery is sought.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action in Case T-560/10; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action in Case T-560/10;

| 2. | Orders Riccardo Nencini to pay the costs in Case T-560/10, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Riccardo Nencini to pay the costs in Case T-560/10, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings;

| 3. | Orders Case T-431/10 to be removed from the register; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Case T-431/10 to be removed from the register;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear their own costs in Case T-431/10, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear their own costs in Case T-431/10, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/64

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Anicav and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector - Actions for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Processed fruit and vegetables - Operational funds and operational programmes - Funding of ‘(non-)genuine processing activities’)

2013/C 225/143

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) (Naples, Italy) (Case T-454/10); Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) (Madrid, Spain); and the sixteen other applicants whose names appear in Annex I to the judgment (Case T-482/10) (represented initially by J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, S. Estima Martins and S. Carvalho de Sousa, and subsequently by S. Estima Martins, S. Carvalho de Sousa and R. Oliveira, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Case T-454/10, initially by B. Schima and M. Vollkommer, and subsequently by B. Schima and N. Donnelly, and, in Case T-482/11, by K. Banks and M. Schima, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants in Case T-454/10: Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA) (Milan, Italy) and the ten other interveners whose names appear in Annex II to the judgment (represented initially by J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, S. Estima Martins and S. Carvalho de Sousa, and subsequently by S. Estima Martins, S. Carvalho de Sousa and R. Oliveira, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Confederazione Cooperative Italiane (Rome, Italy) and the eight other interveners whose names appear in Annex III to the judgment (represented by: M. Merola, C. Santacroce and L. Cappelletti, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION, in Case T-454/10, for annulment of Article 52(2)a of, and Annex VIII to, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010 (OJ 2010 L 199, p. 12), and, in Case T-482/11, for annulment of Article 50(3) and Article 60(7) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010 in so far as it provides that the value of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities’ is included in the value of marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010 in so far as it provides that the value of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities’ is included in the value of marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing;

| 2. | Annuls Article 50(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors in so far as it provides that the value of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities’ is included in the value of marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 50(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors in so far as it provides that the value of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities’ is included in the value of marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing;

| 3. | Annuls Article 60(7) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Article 60(7) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011;

| 4. | Declares that it is not necessary to adjudicate on the action in Case T-454/10 in so far as that action seeks annulment of Annex VIII to Regulation No 1580/2007; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that it is not necessary to adjudicate on the action in Case T-454/10 in so far as that action seeks annulment of Annex VIII to Regulation No 1580/2007;

| 5. | Maintains the effects of the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Regulation No 1580/2007 and of Article 50(3) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 to the extent only that payments to producer organisations executed pursuant to those provisions until delivery of this judgment are to be considered definitive; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Maintains the effects of the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Regulation No 1580/2007 and of Article 50(3) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 to the extent only that payments to producer organisations executed pursuant to those provisions until delivery of this judgment are to be considered definitive;

| 6. | Orders, in Case T-454/10, the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) and of the interveners in support of the form of order sought by Anicav, whose names appear in Annex II; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders, in Case T-454/10, the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) and of the interveners in support of the form of order sought by Anicav, whose names appear in Annex II;

| 7. | Orders, in Case T-454/10, the interveners in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, whose names appear in Annex III, to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders, in Case T-454/10, the interveners in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, whose names appear in Annex III, to bear their own costs;

| 8. | Orders, in Case T-482/11, the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs of the Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) and of the other applicants whose names appear in Annex I; |
| --- | --- |

8.

Orders, in Case T-482/11, the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs of the Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) and of the other applicants whose names appear in Annex I;

| 9. | Orders, in Case T-482/11, the interveners in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, whose names appear in Annex III, to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

9.

Orders, in Case T-482/11, the interveners in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, whose names appear in Annex III, to bear their own costs;

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/65

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-2/11) (1)

(EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred in connection with the POSEI measure (financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007))

2013/C 225/144

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and P. Rossi, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Portuguese Republic in connection with the POSEI measure in respect of the 2005 to 2007 financial years, for a total amount of EUR 743 251,25.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as it applies to the Portuguese Republic a financial correction in connection with the POSEI measure in respect of the 2006 and 2007 financial years; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as it applies to the Portuguese Republic a financial correction in connection with the POSEI measure in respect of the 2006 and 2007 financial years;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/66

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Recombined Dairy System v Commission

(Case T-65/11) (1)

(Customs union - Import of lactoglobulin concentrates from New Zealand - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Request for remission of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)

2013/C 225/145

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Recombined Dairy System A/S (Horsens, Denmark) (represented by: T. Kristjánsson and T. Gønge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Caeiros, L. Keppenne and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents, and P. Dyrberg, lawyer)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7692 final of 12 November 2010, stating that the post-clearance entry in the accounts of certain import duties was justified and that the remission of such duties was not justified (File REC 03/08)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(2) and (4) of Commission Decision C(2010) 7692 final of 12 November 2010 stating that the post-clearance entry in the accounts of certain import duties was justified and that the remission of such duties was not justified (file REC 03/08) as far as it concerns the imports of lactoglobulin concentrates 131 and 8471; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(2) and (4) of Commission Decision C(2010) 7692 final of 12 November 2010 stating that the post-clearance entry in the accounts of certain import duties was justified and that the remission of such duties was not justified (file REC 03/08) as far as it concerns the imports of lactoglobulin concentrates 131 and 8471;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Recombined Dairy System A/S. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Recombined Dairy System A/S.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/66

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Kastenholz v OHIM — Qwatchme (Watch dials)

(Case T-68/11) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing watch dials - Earlier unregistered designs - Ground for invalidity - Novelty - Articles 4, 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Individual character - Different overall impression - Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Earlier copyright - Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002)

2013/C 225/146

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Erich Kastenholz (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: L. Acker, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Hanne, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Qwatchme A/S (Løsning, Denmark) (represented by: M. Zöbisch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 (Case R 1086/2009-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Erich Kastenholz and Qwatchme A/S.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Mr Erich Kastenholz to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Erich Kastenholz to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/66

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission

(Case T-74/11) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) - Decision rejecting a complaint - No European Union interest)

2013/C 225/147

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Omnis Group Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: D.-A.-F. Tarara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Biolan and J. Bourke, subsequently by A. Biolan and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: A.-M. Baciu and G. Harapcea, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8529 of 1 December 2010 rejecting the complaint (Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft) concerning alleged infringements of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU by Microsoft Corp. on the market for Enterprise Application Software, referred to as ‘Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning’ systems.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Omnis Group Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Omnis Group Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/67

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

(Case T-93/11) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India for the purposes of concluding a free trade agreement - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations - Documents which have entered the public domain - Non-imposition of a restriction on disclosure of documents)

2013/C 225/148

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. ten Dam, and subsequently F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Zervas, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller, K. Petersen and A. Wiedmann, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 6 December 2010 refusing the applicant full access to several documents relating to the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India aimed at concluding a free trade agreement, pursuant to the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of 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).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/67

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Voss of Norway v OHIM — Nordic Spirit (Three-dimensional shape of a bottle)

(Case T-178/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the shape of a bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal)

2013/C 225/149

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Voss of Norway ASA (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Melgar, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nordic Spirit AB (publ) (Stockholm, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R 785/2010-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between Nordic Spirit AB (publ) and Voss of Norway ASA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Voss of Norway ASA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Voss of Norway ASA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/68

---

Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Trabelsi and Others v Council

(Case T-187/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Action for damages - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 225/150

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mohamed Trabelsi, Ines Lejri, Moncef Trabelsi, Selima Trabelsi, Tarek Trabelsi (represented by: initially by A. Metzker, and subsequently by A. Tekari, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by G. Étienne and A. Vitro, and subsequently by G. Étienne, M. Bishop and M. M. Joséphidès, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, Agents); and Republic of Tunisia (represented by: W. Bourdon, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of, first, Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40), and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohamed Trabelsi. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohamed Trabelsi.

| 2. | Declares that the effects of Implementing Decision 2011/79 with respect to Mr Mohamed Trabelsi shall be maintained until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal against the present judgment or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until its dismissal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the effects of Implementing Decision 2011/79 with respect to Mr Mohamed Trabelsi shall be maintained until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal against the present judgment or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until its dismissal.

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Mr Mohamed Trabelsi, Mrs Ines Lejri, Mr Moncef Trabelsi, Miss Selima Trabelsi and Mr Tarek Trabelsi, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Mr Mohamed Trabelsi, Mrs Ines Lejri, Mr Moncef Trabelsi, Miss Selima Trabelsi and Mr Tarek Trabelsi, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures.

| 5. | Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Tunisia to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Tunisia to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/68

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Chiboub v Council

(Case T-188/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - No legal basis)

2013/C 225/151

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Slim Ben Mohamed Hassen Ben Salah Chiboub (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: initially, G. Perrot and F. Gaudillière, and subsequently by M.-M. Le Roux, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, A. Vitro, G. Étienne and S. Cook, and subsequently by A. Vitro and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and Republic of Tunisia (represented by: W. Bourdon, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62); secondly, of Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72 (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40); and, thirdly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 1), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia, as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohamed Slim Ben Mohamed Hassen Ben Salah Chiboub; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia, as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohamed Slim Ben Mohamed Hassen Ben Salah Chiboub;

| 2. | Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia in so far as it applies to Mr Chiboub; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia in so far as it applies to Mr Chiboub;

| 3. | Declares that the effects of the Annex to Decision 2011/72, as amended by Implementing Decision 2011/79, with respect to Mr Chiboub shall be maintained until the annulment of Regulation No 101/2011 takes effect in so far as it applies to Mr Chiboub; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the effects of the Annex to Decision 2011/72, as amended by Implementing Decision 2011/79, with respect to Mr Chiboub shall be maintained until the annulment of Regulation No 101/2011 takes effect in so far as it applies to Mr Chiboub;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Chiboub; |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

| 5. | Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Tunisia to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Tunisia to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/69

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Al Matri v Council

(Case T-200/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - No legal basis)

2013/C 225/152

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, Agents); and Republic of Tunisia (represented by: W. Bourdon, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40); secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 1); and, thirdly, of Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72 (OJ 2012 L 27, p. 11), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia, in so far as they concern Mr Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia, in so far as they concern Mr Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri;

| 2. | Declares that the effects of Implementing Decision 2011/79 with respect to Mr Al Matri shall be maintained until the annulment of Regulation No 101/2011 takes effect in so far as it concerns Mr Al Matri; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the effects of Implementing Decision 2011/79 with respect to Mr Al Matri shall be maintained until the annulment of Regulation No 101/2011 takes effect in so far as it concerns Mr Al Matri;

| 3. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Al Matri; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Al Matri;

| 5. | Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Tunisia to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Tunisia to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/69

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)

(Case T-219/11) (1)

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

2013/C 225/153

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (Case R 556/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 January 2011 (Case R 556/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS in so far as it dismisses Mr Otero González’s appeal and grants Apli-Agipa registration of the Community word mark AGIPA in respect of the ‘photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 January 2011 (Case R 556/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS in so far as it dismisses Mr Otero González’s appeal and grants Apli-Agipa registration of the Community word mark AGIPA in respect of the ‘photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Otero González; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Otero González;

| 4. | Orders Apli-Agipa to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Apli-Agipa to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/70

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — International Engine Intellectual Property Company v OHIM (PURE POWER)

(Case T-248/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PURE POWER - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/154

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC (Warrenville, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas and B. Reiter, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2011 (Case R 2310/2010-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign PURE POWER as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/70

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

(Case T-279/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Exceptional measures concerning the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market and opening a tariff quota - Action for annulment - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility - Action for damages)

2013/C 225/155

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: T&L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom); and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Rossi and A. Demeneix, subsequently by P. Rossi, A. Demeneix and N. Donnelly, and lastly by P. Rossi and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Sitbon and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents); and French Republic, (represented by: G. de Bergues and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011 (OJ 2011 L 60, p. 6), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 293/2011 of 23 March 2011 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy (OJ 2011 L 79, p. 8), Commission Implementing Regulation No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year (OJ 2011 L 81, p. 8), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (OJ 2011 L 104, p. 39), and claim for compensation for the damage suffered

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 293/2011 of 23 March 2011 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy, Commission Implementing Regulation No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 293/2011 of 23 March 2011 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy, Commission Implementing Regulation No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences;

| 2. | Dismisses the plea of inadmissibility as regards the claim for compensation for the damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the plea of inadmissibility as regards the claim for compensation for the damage suffered;

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

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/71

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)

(Case T-396/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ultrafilter international - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Abuse of rights)

2013/C 225/156

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz and M. Teworte-Vey, lawyers)

Re:

Action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2011 (Case R 374/2010-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between ultra air GmbH and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 May 2011 (Case R 374/2010-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 May 2011 (Case R 374/2010-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by ultra air GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by ultra air GmbH;

| 3. | Orders Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/71

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2013 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi)

(Case T-505/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark dialdi - Earlier Community word mark ALDI - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/157

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dialcos SpA (Due Carrare, Italy) (represented by: B. Saguatti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2011 (Case R 1097/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi GmbH & Co. KG and Dialcos SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 July 2011 (Case R 1097/2010-2). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 July 2011 (Case R 1097/2010-2).

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and also those incurred by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and also those incurred by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

| 3. | Orders Dialcos SpA to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Dialcos SpA to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/72

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN)

(Case T-514/11) (1)

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

2013/C 225/158

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2011 (Case R 1816/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Decathlon SA and i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2011 (Case R 1816/2010-1) so far as concerns the goods in Class 28 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, corresponding to the following description: ‘inflatable swimming pools for recreational use; jungle gyms (play equipment); stuffed plush animals; swimming pools [toys]; air pistols [toys], hand-held electronic video games; toy vehicles; toy models; electronic hand-held game units; counters for games; checkers [games]; playground apparatus; mechanical action toys; playthings, except playthings for pets; electronic games; toy balloons; dice; novelties for parties, dances (party favours); hand-held electronic games; game cards; pinball-type games; cups for dice; printing toys; question sets for board games; bingo card; model aircraft; skittles; dominoes; decorative wind socks; pinball machines; skill and action games; parlour games; slot machines, automatic; pinball machines (coin or non-coin operated); scale model aeroplanes; card games; flying disks; playing balls; games; cups for dice; dolls; skittles (games); remote-control vehicles (toys); quoits; darts; clay pigeon traps; scale-model vehicles; sledges; slot machines, automatic; chess; toy masks; puzzles; stuffed toys; hand-held computer games; darts; toy aircraft; tossing disc toys; clay pigeons (targets); tappets; teddy bears; hand-held video games; electronically-operated toy motor vehicles; battery operated toys; gaming chips; targets; stuffed toy bears; inflatable toys; board games; swings; kites; model cars’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2011 (Case R 1816/2010-1) so far as concerns the goods in Class 28 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, corresponding to the following description: ‘inflatable swimming pools for recreational use; jungle gyms (play equipment); stuffed plush animals; swimming pools [toys]; air pistols [toys], hand-held electronic video games; toy vehicles; toy models; electronic hand-held game units; counters for games; checkers [games]; playground apparatus; mechanical action toys; playthings, except playthings for pets; electronic games; toy balloons; dice; novelties for parties, dances (party favours); hand-held electronic games; game cards; pinball-type games; cups for dice; printing toys; question sets for board games; bingo card; model aircraft; skittles; dominoes; decorative wind socks; pinball machines; skill and action games; parlour games; slot machines, automatic; pinball machines (coin or non-coin operated); scale model aeroplanes; card games; flying disks; playing balls; games; cups for dice; dolls; skittles (games); remote-control vehicles (toys); quoits; darts; clay pigeon traps; scale-model vehicles; sledges; slot machines, automatic; chess; toy masks; puzzles; stuffed toys; hand-held computer games; darts; toy aircraft; tossing disc toys; clay pigeons (targets); tappets; teddy bears; hand-held video games; electronically-operated toy motor vehicles; battery operated toys; gaming chips; targets; stuffed toy bears; inflatable toys; board games; swings; kites; model cars’;

| 2. | So far as concerns the goods mentioned in Article 1, annuls the Opposition Division’s decision of 21 July 2010 and rejects the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

2.

So far as concerns the goods mentioned in Article 1, annuls the Opposition Division’s decision of 21 July 2010 and rejects the opposition;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/72

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)

(Case T-515/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/159

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, lawyers)

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

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2011 (Case 1967/2010-2) concerning an application for the registration of the word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Delphi Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Delphi Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/73

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (APLI-AGIPA)

(Case T-522/11) (1)

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

2013/C 225/160

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 July 2011 (Case R 1454/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 July 2011 (Case R 1454/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS in so far as it upholds Apli-Agipa’s appeal and grants it registration of the Community word mark AGIPA in respect of the ‘photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 July 2011 (Case R 1454/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS in so far as it upholds Apli-Agipa’s appeal and grants it registration of the Community word mark AGIPA in respect of the ‘photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Otero González; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Otero González;

| 4. | Orders Apli-Agipa to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Apli-Agipa to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/73

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO)

(Case T-580/11) (1)

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

2013/C 225/161

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: McNeil AB (Helsingborg, Sweden) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alkalon ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between McNeil AB and Alkalon ApS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/73

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)

(Case T-598/11) (1)

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

2013/C 225/162

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Marten and R. Pethke, Agents)

Objet

Appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2011 (Case R 131/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Lean Performance Index as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/74

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer (Instrument for writing)

(Case T-608/11) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an instrument for writing - Earlier national figurative and three-dimensional trade marks - Ground for invalidity - Use in the Community design of an earlier sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision)

2013/C 225/163

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beifa Group Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: R. Davis, Barrister, N. Cordell, Solicitor, and B. Longstaff, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer GmbH & Co. KG (Heroldsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Gauß and U. Blumenröder, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2011 (Case R 1838/2010-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer GmbH & Co. KG and Ningbo Beifa Group Co., Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Beifa Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Beifa Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/74

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — Hostel drap v OHIM — Aznar Textil (MY drap)

(Case T-636/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MY drap - Earlier Community figurative mark BON DRAP - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/164

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hostel drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aznar Textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2011 (Case R 2127/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Aznar Textil, SL and Hostel drap, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hostel drap, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hostel drap, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/74

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Heath v ECB

(Case T-645/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service Tribunal - Employees of the ECB - Pensions - Annual increase - Rate of increase for 2010 - Retroactivity - Right to collective bargaining)

2013/C 225/165

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Micheal Heath (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented: initially by P. Embley and E. Carlini, subsequently by E. Carlini and M. Lópex Torres, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) in Case F-121/10 Heath v BCE, judgment of 29 September 2011, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Michael Heath to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB) in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Michael Heath to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB) in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/75

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

(Case T-668/11) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Community procurement procedure - Transport of Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during sessions at Strasbourg - Rejection of the bid of a tenderer - Annulment by the General Court of the rejection decision - Loss allegedly suffered following the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid - Action for damages)

2013/C 225/166

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: G. Hellinckx and M. Mraz and subsequently by: L. Darie and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 rejecting its tender submitted in the context of the tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1), subsequently annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament [2009] ECR II-1403.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders VIP Car Solutions SARL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders VIP Car Solutions SARL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/75

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)

(Case T-89/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark R - Earlier national figurative mark R - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/167

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, 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: Ajuntament de Roses (Roses, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 (Case R 1815/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ajuntament de Roses and Repsol YPF, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Repsol YPF, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Repsol YPF, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/75

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca)

(Case T-115/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Roca - Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/168

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG (Memmingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Waldhauser, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and M. Lenz, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2012 (Case R 1907/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roca Sanitario, SA and Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/76

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency)

(Case T-126/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Inspired by efficiency - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/169

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Interroll (Sant’ Antonino, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Böhm and N. Ehlers, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 1280/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of word sign Inspired by efficiency as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Interroll Holding AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Interroll Holding AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/76

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — HTTS v Council

(Case T-128/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 225/170

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bishop, Z. Kupčová and F. Naert and subsequently by: Bishop and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant (Case T-182/12: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: J. Möller, T. Henze and N. Graf Vitzthum and subsequently by: J. Möller and T. Henze, acting as Agents)

Re:

In Case T-128/12, application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22), in that it listed the applicant’s name on new grounds in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1) in so far as the applicants’ names have been listed on new grounds in Annex VIII to 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) and, in Case T-182/12, application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name has been maintained in the list of persons and entities and bodies whose assets have been frozen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-128/12 and T-182/12 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-128/12 and T-182/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Rules that, in Case T-128/12, there is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it concerns HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rules that, in Case T-128/12, there is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it concerns HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH;

| 3. | Annuls Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it has entered the name of HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping in Annex II to Decision 2010/413; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it has entered the name of HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping in Annex II to Decision 2010/413;

| 4. | Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping;

| 5. | Upholds the effects of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Decision 2012/35, as regards HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping, since its entry into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Upholds the effects of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Decision 2012/35, as regards HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping, since its entry into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

| 6. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping and to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping and to bear its own costs;

| 7. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/77

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light)

(Case T-172/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Be Light - Earlier Community mark BECK’s - relative ground for refusal - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/171

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and C. Töbelmann Valeska, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (representanted by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen Cay, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 2258/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG to pay, besides its own costs, those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG to pay, besides its own costs, those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/77

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card)

(Case T-367/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark MOL Blue Card - Earlier Community word marks BLUE, BLUE BBVA and TARJETA BLUE BBVA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/172

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2012 (Case R 2532/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA and MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/78

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)

(Case T-411/12) (1)

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

2013/C 225/173

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Celtipharm (Vannes, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and C. Fendeleur, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alliance Healthcare France SA (Gennevilliers, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Celtipharm and Alliance Healthcare France SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2);

| 2. | Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/78

---

Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Al-Faqih and MIRA v Council and Commission

(Case T-322/09) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/174

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Saad Al-Faqih (London, United Kingdom) and Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Jones, Barrister, and A. Raja, solicitor)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by R. Szostak and E. Finnegan, then by E. Finnegan and J.-P. Hix, agents); and European Commission (represented by T. Scharf and M. Konstantinidis, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), as amended for the 42nd time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 14/2005 of 5 January 2005 (OJ 2005 L 5, p. 10), for the 48th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2005 of 20 July 2005 (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 27), for the 75th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 492/2007 of 3 May 2007 (OJ 2007 L 116, p. 5) and for the 116th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1102/2009 of 16 November 2009 (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 39), and/or an application for annulment of Regulations Nos 14/2005, 1190/2005, 492/2007 and 1102/2009, in so far as they concern the applicants

Operative part of the order

The General Court orders:

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall jointly and severally pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall jointly and severally pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/79

---

Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Zavvar v Council

(Case T-69/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Removal of the persons concerned from the list - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/175

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Seyed Hadi Zavvar (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of point 22 of Table A in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), point 22 of Table A in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) 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) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation 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) are not to apply to the applicant.

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 Council of the European Union shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/79

---

Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Divandari v Council

(Case T-70/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Plea of inadmissibility - Lis pendens - Plea of illegality - Removal of the persons concerned from the list - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/176

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) 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) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation 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) are not to apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible in so far as it seeks a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 are not to apply to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible in so far as it seeks a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 are not to apply to the applicant.

| 2. | The remainder of the plea of inadmissibility is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the plea of inadmissibility is rejected.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010, and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010, in so far as those measures concern the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010, and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010, in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

| 4. | The Council shall bear, in addition to its own costs, the applicant’s costs relating to the application for annulment of Decision 2011/783, Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011 and Regulation No 267/2012. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council shall bear, in addition to its own costs, the applicant’s costs relating to the application for annulment of Decision 2011/783, Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011 and Regulation No 267/2012.

| 5. | The applicant shall bear his own costs relating to (i) the application for a declaration of inapplicability regarding Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413 and Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 and (ii) the objection of inadmissibility. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The applicant shall bear his own costs relating to (i) the application for a declaration of inapplicability regarding Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413 and Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 and (ii) the objection of inadmissibility.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/80

---

Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Meskarian v Council

(Case T-71/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Removal of the persons concerned from the list - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/177

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohammed Reza Meskarian (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of point 13 of Table A in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), point 13 of Table A in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) 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) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation 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) are not to apply to the applicant.

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 Council of the European Union shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/80

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo

(Case T-213/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Helicopter support to the EULEX Kosovo mission - Rejection of the bid of a tenderer - No legal capacity to be a defendant - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 225/178

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Elitaliana SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Colagrande, lawyer)

Defendant: Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: G. Brosadola Pontotti, Solicitor)

Re:

Firstly, application for annulment of the decision by Eulex Kosovo to award the contract to a tenderer other than the applicant in tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK’ concerning helicopter support to the EULEX Mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11) and, secondly, a claim for compensation against Eulex Kosovo for the loss purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Elitaliana SpA is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Elitaliana SpA is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/81

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)

(Case T-398/12) (1)

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

2013/C 225/179

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, 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: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and B. Bleifeld, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2012 (Case R 2011/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG and s.Oliver Bernd Freier & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay half of the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay half of the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/81

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)

(Case T-399/12) (1)

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

2013/C 225/180

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2012 (Case R 2010/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG and s.Oliver Bernd Freier & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay half of the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay half of the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/81

---

Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Post Invest Europe Sàrl v European Commission

(Case T-413/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to De Post-La Poste (now bpost) - Compensation for public service costs - Decision declaring the aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Offers of further evidence)

2013/C 225/181

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Post Invest Europe Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and T. Franchoo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and D. Grespan, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Articles 2 and 5 to 7 of Commission Decision 2012/321/EU of 25 January 2012 on the measure SA.14588 (C-20/09) implemented by Belgium in favour of De Post-La Poste (now bpost) (OJ 2012 L 170, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Belgium. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Belgium.

| 3. | Post Invest Europe Sàrl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Post Invest Europe Sàrl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/82

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2013 — Talanton v Commission

(Case T-165/13 R)

(Interim relief - Arbitration clause - Contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Repayment of sums paid - Application for stay of execution - No urgency)

2013/C 225/182

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etairia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketigk kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Talanton SA Business Consulting and Marketing Services) (Athens, Greece) (represented by M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Cordewener and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of a number of acts concerning the repayment of sums paid to the applicant under contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/82

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Rubinum v Commission

(Case T-201/13 R)

(Interim relief - Authorisation of feed additives - Regulation on the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Weighing up of interests)

2013/C 225/183

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rubinum SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and B. Schima, agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013 of 25 March 2013 concerning the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (NCIMB 40112/CNCM I-1012) as provided for by Regulations (EC) No 256/2002, (EC) No 1453/2004, (EC) No 255/2005, (EC) No 1200/2005, (EC) No 166/2008 and (EC) No 378/2009 (OJ 2013 L 86, p. 15).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The Order of 15 April 2013 in Case T-201/13 R Rubinum v Commission is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Order of 15 April 2013 in Case T-201/13 R Rubinum v Commission is cancelled.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/82

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Daniel Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Dabiel Swarovski Privat)

(Case T-55/09) (1)

2013/C 225/184

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/82

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Trasys v Commission

(Case T-277/09) (1)

2013/C 225/185

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/83

---

Order of the General Court of 27 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-45/11) (1)

2013/C 225/186

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/83

---

Order of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — AU Optronics v Commission

(Case T-94/11) (1)

2013/C 225/187

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/83

---

Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — SRF v Council

(Case T-407/11) (1)

2013/C 225/188

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/83

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Barloworld v Commission

(Case T-459/11) (1)

2013/C 225/189

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/83

---

Order of the General Court of 3 June 2013 — bachmaier v OHIM — (oto-soft)

(Case T-550/12) (1)

2013/C 225/190

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/83

---

Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — MasterCard International v OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)

(Case T-13/13) (1)

2013/C 225/191

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/84

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-56/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading)

2013/C 225/192

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision downgrading the applicant by two grades in the same function group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Lebedef is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Lebedef is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011. p. 31.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/84

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-86/11) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise that invalidity arose from an occupational disease)

2013/C 225/193

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert McCoy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union (represented by: J.C. Cañoto Argüelles, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Civil Service — Application for the annulment of the decision refusing to recognise that the applicant's invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, concerning the refusal to recognise that Mr McCoy's invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, concerning the refusal to recognise that Mr McCoy's invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 42.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/84

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — BX v Commission

(Case F-88/11) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Competition EPSO/AD/148/09 - Failure to include the applicant in the reserve list)

2013/C 225/194

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BX (Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Civil Service Tribunal — Application seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board not to include the applicant in the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/148/09 — RO-Administrator (AD 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders BX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 45.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/85

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Vacca v Commission

(Case F-116/11) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/207/11 - Non-admission to the assessment tests - Admission tests - Cancellation of questions - Information for candidates)

2013/C 225/195

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Annalisa Vacca (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in the competition EPSO/AD/207/11.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 500 to Ms Vacca; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 500 to Ms Vacca;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Vacca; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Vacca;

| 4. | Orders Ms Vacca to bear one third of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ms Vacca to bear one third of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2013, p. 69.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/85

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-44/11) (1)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)

2013/C 225/196

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cirpressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for an order that the Commission pay a sum by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the request made by the Commission’s Medical Officer to the applicant’s doctor for certain information regarding the medical treatment received by the applicant

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own cost and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commisison. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own cost and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commisison.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 34.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/85

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-67/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Annulment of the Commission’s decision - Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal - Damage arising as a result of non-compliance - Conditions - Action manifestly lacking any basis in law)

2013/C 225/197

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cirpressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request relating, first, to compliance on the part of the Commission with paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 June 2010 in Case F-56/09 Marcuccio v Commission, and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case F-67/11 R Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case F-67/11 R Marcuccio v Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 29.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/86

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 April 2013 — Andersen v Court of Auditors

(Case F-1/12) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Retirement on grounds of invalidity - Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 225/198

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Henrik Andersen (Hals, Denmark) (represented by: S. Rodriguez. A. Blot and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy. N. Scafarto and B. Schäfer, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors refusing to pay compensation for the loss purportedly suffered following the applicant’s retirement on grounds of invalidity.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Andersen is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Andersen is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 29.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/86

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-4/12) (1)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period prescribed for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Application lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility - None)

2013/C 225/199

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: C. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s request to forward to him all the access codes to the Internet sites accessible to all Commission officials following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F 41/06, annulling the Commission’s decision to retire him on grounds of invalidity.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 28.

---

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/86

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2013 — Carosi v Commission

(Case F-54/12) (1)

2013/C 225/200

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012, p. 28.

---