# Official Journal C 73/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 73 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 582 March 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 73

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 582 March 2015

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| 2015/C 073/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

2015/C 073/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2015/C 073/02 | Joined Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Parliament, European Commission v Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (Appeals — Directive 2008/50/EC — Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe — Decision regarding the notification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the postponement of the deadline for attaining the limit values for nitrogen dioxide and the exemption from the obligation to apply the limit values for particulate matter (PM10) — Request for internal review of that decision, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention) | 2 |
| 2015/C 073/03 | Joined Cases C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe (Appeals — Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 — Regulation setting maximum residue levels for pesticides — Request for internal review of that regulation, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention) | 3 |
| 2015/C 073/04 | Case C-171/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Social security for migrant workers — Waiver of residence clauses — Supplementary benefits granted under national legislation — Residence requirement — Application to Turkish former workers — Turkish nationals having acquired the nationality of the host Member State) | 4 |
| 2015/C 073/05 | Case C-179/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Determination of the social security legislation applicable to a worker — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Applicability — Employment of a national of a Member State at the consulate of a third State in the territory of another Member State in whose territory he resides — Vienna Convention on consular relations — Article 71(2) — National legislation according facilities, privileges and immunities to permanent residents) | 4 |
| 2015/C 073/06 | Case C-518/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Practice of permitting London taxis to use bus lanes while prohibiting private hire vehicles from doing so — Concept of State aid — State resources — Economic advantage — Selective advantage — Effect on trade between Member States) | 5 |
| 2015/C 073/07 | Case C-537/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Scope — Consumer contracts — Contract for the provision of legal services concluded between a lawyer and a consumer) | 6 |
| 2015/C 073/08 | Case C-573/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Air services — Second sentence of Article 23(1) — Price transparency — Computerised booking system — Air fares — Indication at all times of the final price) | 6 |
| 2015/C 073/09 | Case C-631/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Arne Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Active ingredient — Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine — Paediatric use — Carrier protein — Covalent binding) | 7 |
| 2015/C 073/10 | Case C-30/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right — Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database) | 8 |
| 2015/C 073/11 | Case C-498/14 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — RG (*1) 
  v SF (*1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11(7) and (8)) | 8 |
| 2015/C 073/12 | Case C-311/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 July 2014 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2014 in Case T-473/11 Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 9 |
| 2015/C 073/13 | Case C-466/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2014 — Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 9 |
| 2015/C 073/14 | Case C-510/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Marianne Parigger v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 10 |
| 2015/C 073/15 | Case C-544/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Catherine Gimmig v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 10 |
| 2015/C 073/16 | Case C-548/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-490/12: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 10 |
| 2015/C 073/17 | Case C-554/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 3 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov | 11 |
| 2015/C 073/18 | Case C-567/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH | 12 |
| 2015/C 073/19 | Case C-571/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 10 December 2014 — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond | 13 |
| 2015/C 073/20 | Case C-576/14 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. against the order of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2014 in Case T-430/14 Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. v European Commission and European Ombudsman | 14 |
| 2015/C 073/21 | Case C-589/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium | 15 |
| 2015/C 073/22 | Case C-591/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium | 16 |
| 2015/C 073/23 | Case C-593/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2014 — Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet | 17 |
| 2015/C 073/24 | Case C-600/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union | 17 |
| 2015/C 073/25 | Case C-611/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S | 18 |
| 2015/C 073/26 | Case C-1/15: Action brought on 6 January 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria | 19 |
| 2015/C 073/27 | Case C-1/15 SA: Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order brought on 12 January 2015 — La Chaine hôtelière La Frontière, Shotef SPRL v European Commission | 20 |
| 2015/C 073/28 | Case T-509/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Right to privacy — Proportionality) | 22 |
| 2015/C 073/29 | Case T-109/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Time-limit for adopting a decision) | 22 |
| 2015/C 073/30 | Case T-111/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Reduction of the financial assistance — Time-limit for adopting a decision) | 23 |
| 2015/C 073/31 | Case T-46/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA — Earlier Community figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15 and Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark) | 24 |
| 2015/C 073/32 | Case T-355/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — easyJet Airline v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Airport services market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Case dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State — Rejection of the complaint on priority grounds — Decision of the competition authority drawing conclusions, in competition law, from an investigation conducted under national legislation applicable to the sector in question — Obligation to state reasons) | 25 |
| 2015/C 073/33 | Case T-587/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Schwerdt v OHIM — Iberamigo (cat & clean) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark cat & clean — Prior Spanish word mark CLEAN CAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obstacles to the free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) | 25 |
| 2015/C 073/34 | Case T-615/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 26 |
| 2015/C 073/35 | Case T-616/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 27 |
| 2015/C 073/36 | Case T-617/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 27 |
| 2015/C 073/37 | Case T-685/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BLUECO — Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 28 |
| 2015/C 073/38 | Case T-11/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM (Pianissimo) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Pianissimo — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment) | 29 |
| 2015/C 073/39 | Case T-188/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GentleCare — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment) | 29 |
| 2015/C 073/40 | Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and Case T-440/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility) | 30 |
| 2015/C 073/41 | Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and Case T-439/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility) | 31 |
| 2015/C 073/42 | Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and Case T-441/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility) | 32 |
| 2015/C 073/43 | Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and Case T-438/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Global Steel Wire v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility) | 33 |
| 2015/C 073/44 | Case T-482/12: Order of the General Court of 9 January 2015 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court — Application initiating proceedings — Disregard of formal requirements — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility) | 34 |
| 2015/C 073/45 | Case T-36/14: Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — European Creative Industries Alliance Programme — C-I Factor project aimed at introducing new instruments in order to promote funding for cultural and creative industries — Decision to end the project — Measure forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is not separable — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2015/C 073/46 | Case T-93/14: Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — European Creative Industries Alliance programme — C-I Factor project aimed at establishing new instruments to encourage the funding of the cultural and creative industries — Debit note — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2015/C 073/47 | Case T-185/14: Order of the General Court of 7 January 2015 — Freitas v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Directive 2013/55/EU — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Exclusion of notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36 — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 36 |
| 2015/C 073/48 | Case T-762/14: Action brought on 13 November 2014 — Philips and Philips France v Commission | 37 |
| 2015/C 073/49 | Case T-763/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR) | 38 |
| 2015/C 073/50 | Case T-775/14: Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC) | 39 |
| 2015/C 073/51 | Case T-783/14: Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission | 40 |
| 2015/C 073/52 | Case T-786/14: Action brought on 1 December 2014 — Bourdouvali e.a./Council e.a. | 40 |
| 2015/C 073/53 | Case T-811/14: Action brought on 8 December 2014 — Unilever v OHIM — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely) | 41 |
| 2015/C 073/54 | Case T-831/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Alfamicro v Commission | 42 |
| 2015/C 073/55 | Case T-841/14: Action brought on 30 December 2014 — Spain v Commission | 43 |
| 2015/C 073/56 | Case T-848/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB | 45 |
| 2015/C 073/57 | Case T-849/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB | 46 |
| 2015/C 073/58 | Case T-5/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza) | 47 |
| 2015/C 073/59 | Case T-6/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza) | 47 |
| 2015/C 073/60 | Case T-10/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2015 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-52/11 De Nicola v EIB | 48 |
| 2015/C 073/61 | Case T-11/15: Action brought on 9 January 2015 — Internet Consulting v OHIM — Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL) | 50 |
| 2015/C 073/62 | Case T-259/14: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission | 50 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 073/02

Joined Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Parliament, European Commission v Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (Appeals — Directive 2008/50/EC — Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe — Decision regarding the notification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the postponement of the deadline for attaining the limit values for nitrogen dioxide and the exemption from the obligation to apply the limit values for particulate matter (PM10) — Request for internal review of that decision, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

2

2015/C 073/03

Joined Cases C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe (Appeals — Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 — Regulation setting maximum residue levels for pesticides — Request for internal review of that regulation, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

3

2015/C 073/04

Case C-171/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Social security for migrant workers — Waiver of residence clauses — Supplementary benefits granted under national legislation — Residence requirement — Application to Turkish former workers — Turkish nationals having acquired the nationality of the host Member State)

4

2015/C 073/05

Case C-179/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Determination of the social security legislation applicable to a worker — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Applicability — Employment of a national of a Member State at the consulate of a third State in the territory of another Member State in whose territory he resides — Vienna Convention on consular relations — Article 71(2) — National legislation according facilities, privileges and immunities to permanent residents)

4

2015/C 073/06

Case C-518/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Practice of permitting London taxis to use bus lanes while prohibiting private hire vehicles from doing so — Concept of State aid — State resources — Economic advantage — Selective advantage — Effect on trade between Member States)

5

2015/C 073/07

Case C-537/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Scope — Consumer contracts — Contract for the provision of legal services concluded between a lawyer and a consumer)

6

2015/C 073/08

Case C-573/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Air services — Second sentence of Article 23(1) — Price transparency — Computerised booking system — Air fares — Indication at all times of the final price)

6

2015/C 073/09

Case C-631/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Arne Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Active ingredient — Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine — Paediatric use — Carrier protein — Covalent binding)

7

2015/C 073/10

Case C-30/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right — Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database)

8

2015/C 073/11

Case C-498/14 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — RG (*1) 
  v SF (*1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11(7) and (8))

*1

*1

8

2015/C 073/12

Case C-311/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 July 2014 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2014 in Case T-473/11 Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Longevity Health Products, Inc.

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

9

2015/C 073/13

Case C-466/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2014 — Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

9

2015/C 073/14

Case C-510/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Marianne Parigger v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

10

2015/C 073/15

Case C-544/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Catherine Gimmig v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

10

2015/C 073/16

Case C-548/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-490/12: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

10

2015/C 073/17

Case C-554/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 3 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov

11

2015/C 073/18

Case C-567/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

12

2015/C 073/19

Case C-571/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 10 December 2014 — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

13

2015/C 073/20

Case C-576/14 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. against the order of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2014 in Case T-430/14 Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. v European Commission and European Ombudsman

14

2015/C 073/21

Case C-589/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

15

2015/C 073/22

Case C-591/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

16

2015/C 073/23

Case C-593/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2014 — Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet

17

2015/C 073/24

Case C-600/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union

17

2015/C 073/25

Case C-611/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S

18

2015/C 073/26

Case C-1/15: Action brought on 6 January 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

19

2015/C 073/27

Case C-1/15 SA: Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order brought on 12 January 2015 — La Chaine hôtelière La Frontière, Shotef SPRL v European Commission

20

2015/C 073/28

Case T-509/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Right to privacy — Proportionality)

22

2015/C 073/29

Case T-109/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Time-limit for adopting a decision)

22

2015/C 073/30

Case T-111/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Reduction of the financial assistance — Time-limit for adopting a decision)

23

2015/C 073/31

Case T-46/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA — Earlier Community figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15 and Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark)

24

2015/C 073/32

Case T-355/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — easyJet Airline v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Airport services market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Case dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State — Rejection of the complaint on priority grounds — Decision of the competition authority drawing conclusions, in competition law, from an investigation conducted under national legislation applicable to the sector in question — Obligation to state reasons)

25

2015/C 073/33

Case T-587/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Schwerdt v OHIM — Iberamigo (cat & clean) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark cat & clean — Prior Spanish word mark CLEAN CAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obstacles to the free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

25

2015/C 073/34

Case T-615/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

26

2015/C 073/35

Case T-616/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

27

2015/C 073/36

Case T-617/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

27

2015/C 073/37

Case T-685/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BLUECO — Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

28

2015/C 073/38

Case T-11/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM (Pianissimo) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Pianissimo — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

29

2015/C 073/39

Case T-188/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GentleCare — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

29

2015/C 073/40

Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and Case T-440/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

30

2015/C 073/41

Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and Case T-439/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

31

2015/C 073/42

Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and Case T-441/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

32

2015/C 073/43

Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and Case T-438/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Global Steel Wire v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

33

2015/C 073/44

Case T-482/12: Order of the General Court of 9 January 2015 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court — Application initiating proceedings — Disregard of formal requirements — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility)

34

2015/C 073/45

Case T-36/14: Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — European Creative Industries Alliance Programme — C-I Factor project aimed at introducing new instruments in order to promote funding for cultural and creative industries — Decision to end the project — Measure forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is not separable — Inadmissibility)

35

2015/C 073/46

Case T-93/14: Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — European Creative Industries Alliance programme — C-I Factor project aimed at establishing new instruments to encourage the funding of the cultural and creative industries — Debit note — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility)

35

2015/C 073/47

Case T-185/14: Order of the General Court of 7 January 2015 — Freitas v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Directive 2013/55/EU — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Exclusion of notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36 — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

36

2015/C 073/48

Case T-762/14: Action brought on 13 November 2014 — Philips and Philips France v Commission

37

2015/C 073/49

Case T-763/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

38

2015/C 073/50

Case T-775/14: Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

39

2015/C 073/51

Case T-783/14: Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission

40

2015/C 073/52

Case T-786/14: Action brought on 1 December 2014 — Bourdouvali e.a./Council e.a.

40

2015/C 073/53

Case T-811/14: Action brought on 8 December 2014 — Unilever v OHIM — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)

41

2015/C 073/54

Case T-831/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Alfamicro v Commission

42

2015/C 073/55

Case T-841/14: Action brought on 30 December 2014 — Spain v Commission

43

2015/C 073/56

Case T-848/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB

45

2015/C 073/57

Case T-849/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB

46

2015/C 073/58

Case T-5/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)

47

2015/C 073/59

Case T-6/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)

47

2015/C 073/60

Case T-10/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2015 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-52/11 De Nicola v EIB

48

2015/C 073/61

Case T-11/15: Action brought on 9 January 2015 — Internet Consulting v OHIM — Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL)

50

2015/C 073/62

Case T-259/14: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission

50

---

| | |
| --- | --- |

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/1

---

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

(2015/C 073/01)

Last publication

OJ C 65, 23.2.2015

Past publications

OJ C 56, 16.2.2015

OJ C 46, 9.2.2015

OJ C 34, 2.2.2015

OJ C 26, 26.1.2015

OJ C 16, 19.1.2015

OJ C 7, 12.1.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Parliament, European Commission v Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht

(Joined Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Directive 2008/50/EC - Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe - Decision regarding the notification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the postponement of the deadline for attaining the limit values for nitrogen dioxide and the exemption from the obligation to apply the limit values for particulate matter (PM10) - Request for internal review of that decision, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

(2015/C 073/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and G. Corstens, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, P. Oliver, P. Van Nuffel, G. Valero Jordana and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (represented by: A. van den Biesen, advocaat)

Intervener in support of the appellants: Czech Republic (represented by: D. Hadroušek, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the cross-appeal;

| 2) | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission (T-396/09, EU:T:2012:301); |
| --- | --- |

2)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission (T-396/09, EU:T:2012:301);

| 3) | Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht before the General Court of the European Union;

| 4) | Orders Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission;

| 5) | Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5)

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe

(Joined Cases C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 - Regulation setting maximum residue levels for pesticides - Request for internal review of that regulation, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

(2015/C 073/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, P. Oliver and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe (represented by: A. van den Biesen, advocaat)

Intervener in support of the appellants: Czech Republic (represented by D. Hadroušek, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the cross-appeal;

| 2) | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission (T-338/08, EU:T:2012:300); |
| --- | --- |

2)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission (T-338/08, EU:T:2012:300);

| 3) | Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe before the General Court of the European Union;

| 4) | Orders Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

| 5) | Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5)

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others

(Case C-171/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Social security for migrant workers - Waiver of residence clauses - Supplementary benefits granted under national legislation - Residence requirement - Application to Turkish former workers - Turkish nationals having acquired the nationality of the host Member State)

(2015/C 073/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

Defendants: M.S. Demirci, D. Cetin, A.I. Önder, R. Keskin, M. Tüle, A. Taskin

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families, viewed also in the light of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as meaning that nationals of a Member State who have been duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State as Turkish workers cannot, on the ground that they have retained Turkish nationality, rely on Article 6 of Decision No 3/80 to object to a residence requirement provided for by the legislation of that Member State in order to receive a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2) 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, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 April 2005.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans

(Case C-179/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Determination of the social security legislation applicable to a worker - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Applicability - Employment of a national of a Member State at the consulate of a third State in the territory of another Member State in whose territory he resides - Vienna Convention on consular relations - Article 71(2) - National legislation according facilities, privileges and immunities to permanent residents)

(2015/C 073/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Defendant: L.F. Evans

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, read in conjunction with Article 16 of that regulation, should be construed as meaning that, for the period during which a national of a Member State has been employed at a consular post of a third State within the territory of a Member State of which he is not a national but within whose territory he resides, that national is not subject to the legislation of a Member State within the meaning of this provision if, by virtue of the legislation of his Member State of residence, adopted pursuant to Article 71(2) of the Vienna Convention on consular relations, concluded at Vienna on 24 April 1963, he is not affiliated to the national social security scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator

(Case C-518/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Practice of permitting London taxis to use bus lanes while prohibiting private hire vehicles from doing so - Concept of State aid - State resources - Economic advantage - Selective advantage - Effect on trade between Member States)

(2015/C 073/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, on the application of Eventech Ltd

Defendant: The Parking Adjudicator

Intervening parties: London Borough of Camden, Transport for London

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The practice of permitting, in order to establish a safe and efficient transport system, Black Cabs to use bus lanes on public roads during the hours when the traffic restrictions relating to those lanes are operational, while prohibiting minicabs from using those lanes, except in order to pick up and set down passengers who have pre-booked such vehicles, does not appear, though it is for the referring court to determine, to be such as to involve a commitment of State resources or to confer on Black Cabs a selective economic advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The practice of permitting, in order to establish a safe and efficient transport system, Black Cabs to use bus lanes on public roads during the hours when the traffic restrictions relating to those lanes are operational, while prohibiting minicabs from using those lanes, except in order to pick up and set down passengers who have pre-booked such vehicles, does not appear, though it is for the referring court to determine, to be such as to involve a commitment of State resources or to confer on Black Cabs a selective economic advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

| 2. | It is conceivable that the practice of permitting Black Cabs to use bus lanes on public roads during the hours when the traffic restrictions relating to those lanes are operational, while prohibiting minicabs from using those lanes, except in order to pick up or set down passengers who have pre-booked such vehicles, may be such as to affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is conceivable that the practice of permitting Black Cabs to use bus lanes on public roads during the hours when the traffic restrictions relating to those lanes are operational, while prohibiting minicabs from using those lanes, except in order to pick up or set down passengers who have pre-booked such vehicles, may be such as to affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas

(Case C-537/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Consumer contracts - Contract for the provision of legal services concluded between a lawyer and a consumer)

(2015/C 073/07)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Birutė Šiba

Defendant: Arūnas Devėnas

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as applying to standard form contracts for legal services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by a lawyer with a natural person acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

(Case C-573/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Air services - Second sentence of Article 23(1) - Price transparency - Computerised booking system - Air fares - Indication at all times of the final price)

(2015/C 073/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated whenever the prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated whenever the prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time.

| 2) | The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Arne Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt

(Case C-631/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - ‘Active ingredient’ - Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine - Paediatric use - Carrier protein - Covalent binding)

(2015/C 073/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Arne Forsgren

Defendant: Österreichisches Patentamt

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Articles 1(b) and 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, the possibility that an active ingredient can give rise to the grant of a supplementary protection certificate where the active ingredient is covalently bound to other active ingredients which are part of a medicinal product. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Articles 1(b) and 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, the possibility that an active ingredient can give rise to the grant of a supplementary protection certificate where the active ingredient is covalently bound to other active ingredients which are part of a medicinal product.

| 2) | Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient whose effect does not fall within the therapeutic indications covered by the wording of the marketing authorisation. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient whose effect does not fall within the therapeutic indications covered by the wording of the marketing authorisation.

| 3) | Article 1(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a carrier protein conjugated with a polysaccharide antigen by means of a covalent binding may be categorised as an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of that provision only if it is established that it produces a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action of its own which is covered by the therapeutic indications of the marketing authorisation, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine, in the light of all the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Article 1(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a carrier protein conjugated with a polysaccharide antigen by means of a covalent binding may be categorised as an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of that provision only if it is established that it produces a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action of its own which is covered by the therapeutic indications of the marketing authorisation, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine, in the light of all the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV

(Case C-30/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right - Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database)

(2015/C 073/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: PR Aviation BV

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a database which is not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that Articles 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive do not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations on its use by third parties, without prejudice to the applicable national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — RG (*1) v SF (*1)

(Case C-498/14 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Child abduction - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 11(7) and (8))

(2015/C 073/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RG (*1)

Defendant: SF (*1)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(7) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not precluding, as a general rule, a Member State from allocating to a specialised court the jurisdiction to examine questions of return or custody with respect to a child in the context of the procedure set out in those provisions, even where proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility with respect to the child have already, separately, been brought before a court or tribunal.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/9

---

Appeal brought on 1 July 2014 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2014 in Case T-473/11 Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-311/14 P)

(2015/C 073/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Weleda Trademark AG

By order of 20 January 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2014 — Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-466/14)

(2015/C 073/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 9 December 2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Marianne Parigger v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-510/14)

(2015/C 073/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marianne Parigger

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 9 December 2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Catherine Gimmig v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-544/14)

(2015/C 073/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Catherine Gimmig

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

This Case was removed from the Register of the Court by Order of the Court of 10 January 2015.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/10

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-490/12: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-548/14 P)

(2015/C 073/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA (represented by: G. Dragotti, R. Valenti, S. Balice, E. Varese, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grazia Equity GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside points 25 to 33 and 68 to 83 of the appealed judgment on all the grounds set out in the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside points 25 to 33 and 68 to 83 of the appealed judgment on all the grounds set out in the appeal;

| — | uphold applicant’s action against the Board of Appeal decision or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, and; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold applicant’s action against the Board of Appeal decision or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, and;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the Applicant, both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the Applicant, both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant maintains that the Appealed Judgment should be partially set aside on the following grounds:

| A. | the General Court (‘GC’) erred in law in ruling out the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (‘CTMR’) (1) without considering the case-law of this Court on the complementarity of goods and services and the principle of interdependence; the GC also disregarded or distorted the facts and evidence submitted to it by AME regarding the similarity of the goods and services concerned, at least in connection with the notion of complementarity. |
| --- | --- |

A.

the General Court (‘GC’) erred in law in ruling out the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (‘CTMR’) (1) without considering the case-law of this Court on the complementarity of goods and services and the principle of interdependence; the GC also disregarded or distorted the facts and evidence submitted to it by AME regarding the similarity of the goods and services concerned, at least in connection with the notion of complementarity.

| B. | the GC infringed Article 8(5) CTMR on the following grounds:






  i. | the GC erred in law in allotting a specific degree of reputation of AME's trademark, which is not required for the purpose of the implementation of the enhanced protection conferred by Article 8 (5) CTMR; furthermore, the GC did not comply with the criteria set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice for assessing the degree of reputation of a trademark. |
| --- | --- | --- |

B.

the GC infringed Article 8(5) CTMR on the following grounds:

i.

the GC erred in law in allotting a specific degree of reputation of AME's trademark, which is not required for the purpose of the implementation of the enhanced protection conferred by Article 8 (5) CTMR; furthermore, the GC did not comply with the criteria set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice for assessing the degree of reputation of a trademark.

| ii. | the GC erred in law in ruling out the existence of a link between the marks on the basis of an assessment of the relevant factors (i.e. the nature of the goods or services concerned, the relevant section of the public, the strength of the earlier mark's reputation, the degree of the earlier mark's distinctive character) which is not compliant with the criteria set out by the case-law of the Court of Justice in the application of Article 8 (5) CTMR; the GC also erred in considering the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, which is not required for the application of Article 8 (5) CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

the GC erred in law in ruling out the existence of a link between the marks on the basis of an assessment of the relevant factors (i.e. the nature of the goods or services concerned, the relevant section of the public, the strength of the earlier mark's reputation, the degree of the earlier mark's distinctive character) which is not compliant with the criteria set out by the case-law of the Court of Justice in the application of Article 8 (5) CTMR; the GC also erred in considering the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, which is not required for the application of Article 8 (5) CTMR.

| iii. | the GC erred in law in denying the application of Article 8(5) CTMR without having assessed whether the applied for sign could take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the earlier and reputed mark. |
| --- | --- |

iii.

the GC erred in law in denying the application of Article 8(5) CTMR without having assessed whether the applied for sign could take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the earlier and reputed mark.

---

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

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 3 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov

(Case C-554/14)

(2015/C 073/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Sentenced person: Atanas Ognyanov

Other party to the proceedings: Public prosecutor at the Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 preclude the executing State, in the course of the transfer procedure, from reducing the duration of the sentence of deprivation of liberty imposed by the issuing State, on account of work undertaken while that sentence was being served in the issuing State, as follows:






  A) | Reduction of the sentence in application of the law of the executing State on the enforcement of the sentence in accordance with Article 17(1) [of the Framework Decision]: does that provision permit the law of the executing State on the enforcement of the sentence to be applied even at the stage of the transfer procedure in respect of matters (namely work undertaken in prison in the issuing State) which occurred while the sentenced person was under the jurisdiction of the issuing State? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 preclude the executing State, in the course of the transfer procedure, from reducing the duration of the sentence of deprivation of liberty imposed by the issuing State, on account of work undertaken while that sentence was being served in the issuing State, as follows:

A)

Reduction of the sentence in application of the law of the executing State on the enforcement of the sentence in accordance with Article 17(1) [of the Framework Decision]: does that provision permit the law of the executing State on the enforcement of the sentence to be applied even at the stage of the transfer procedure in respect of matters (namely work undertaken in prison in the issuing State) which occurred while the sentenced person was under the jurisdiction of the issuing State?

| B) | Reduction of the sentence as a result of a deduction made in accordance with Article 17(2) [of the Framework Decision]: does that provision permit the deduction of a period that is longer than the period of deprivation of liberty determined in accordance with the law of the issuing State, where the law of the executing State is applied and, as a result, a fresh legal assessment is made of matters which occurred in the issuing State (namely work undertaken in prison in the issuing State)? |
| --- | --- |

B)

Reduction of the sentence as a result of a deduction made in accordance with Article 17(2) [of the Framework Decision]: does that provision permit the deduction of a period that is longer than the period of deprivation of liberty determined in accordance with the law of the issuing State, where the law of the executing State is applied and, as a result, a fresh legal assessment is made of matters which occurred in the issuing State (namely work undertaken in prison in the issuing State)?

| 2. | In the event that these or other provisions of the Framework Decision are applicable to the reduction in sentence at issue, is the issuing State required to be notified if it has made a specific request to that effect, and is the transfer procedure to be discontinued if the issuing State objects? If there is a notification requirement, what should the nature of that notification be: should it be in general and abstract terms as regards the applicable law, or should it relate to the specific reduction in sentence which the court will impose on a particular sentenced person? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that these or other provisions of the Framework Decision are applicable to the reduction in sentence at issue, is the issuing State required to be notified if it has made a specific request to that effect, and is the transfer procedure to be discontinued if the issuing State objects? If there is a notification requirement, what should the nature of that notification be: should it be in general and abstract terms as regards the applicable law, or should it relate to the specific reduction in sentence which the court will impose on a particular sentenced person?

Supplementary question

In the event that the Court of Justice of the European Union should rule that the provisions of Article 17(1) and (2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA preclude a reduction of sentence by the executing State on the basis of its domestic law (on account of work undertaken in the issuing State), is the national court’s decision nevertheless to apply its national law, owing to the fact that it is more favourable than Article 17 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, compatible with EU law?

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-567/14)

(2015/C 073/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Genentech Inc.

Defendant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

‘Must the provisions of Article 81 of the Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding effect being given, where patents are revoked, to a licence agreement which requires the licencee to pay royalties for the sole use of the rights attached to the licensed patent?’

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 10 December 2014 — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-571/14)

(2015/C 073/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Timberland Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it relates to [C], established in Vietnam, and [F], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’) were infringed, given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by the aforementioned exporting producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it relates to [C], established in Vietnam, and [F], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’) were infringed, given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by the aforementioned exporting producers?

| 2. | Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to the producers referred to in question 1 because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to the producers referred to in question 1 because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation?

| 3. | Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to [A], part of [B], established in Vietnam, and [D], part of [E], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to [A], part of [B], established in Vietnam, and [D], part of [E], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/14

---

Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. against the order of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2014 in Case T-430/14 Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. v European Commission and European Ombudsman

(Case C-576/14 P)

(2015/C 073/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. (represented by: K.D. Pap, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, European Ombudsman

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court

Pleas in law and main arguments

Principal ground of appeal:

According to the appellant, the General Court misinterpreted and incorrectly reformulated the claims in its application and also misinterpreted the pleas relied on in support in holding that it had brought an action against the Commission on the ground of ‘the Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings’.

The appellant states that its application asked the General Court to ‘
  oblige the European Commission to conduct a procedure which was in accordance with EU law and guaranteed the effectiveness of EU law
  ’.

On that basis the appellant brought an action against the Commission arguing that the manifest breach of its right to fair administration entailed a breach of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It argues that the Commission thereby not only deprived it of its right to fair administration but also of its right to an effective judicial procedure, in that it conducted an unfair procedure, did not carry out an analysis which was in accordance with EU law and did not guarantee the effectiveness of that law (inter alia the Charter on Fundamental Rights).

The appellant considers that the interpretation of its application by the General Court implies that it follows directly from the Commission’s procedure in accordance with EU law that, in the case of an objective review under EU law, the Commission was obliged to open infringement proceedings, and the appellant could not demand that it do so.

By contrast, the appellant takes the view that it is clear from the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which have the same binding force as the Treaties, that it is only after making a fair assessment that the Commission may decide, on the basis of the case-law, whether it should open infringement proceedings. Consequently, fair administration is a fundamental requirement and the Commission may only exercise its power to assess — which, in the opinion of the appellant, may not lead to failure to observe fundamental rights — following fair administration, given that, otherwise (as in the present case) it may not even be in a situation where there is anything to assess.

Ground of appeal in the alternative: EU law does not, even indirectly, provide for any discretion for the Commission to grant an exemption from the obligation of the Member States to apply secondary legislation and the Regulation.

The view of the General Court on the Commission’s discretion, set out in the grounds of the judgment — paragraph 6 — breaches, from various points of view, binding and unequivocal provisions of the Treaties, which are not, therefore, subject to assessment by the Commission. In the view of the appellant, the Commission is not, moreover able to assess the obligation to ensure the effectiveness of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

In its application, the appellant did not at any point contest the Commission’s discretion, but, rather, in the actual substance of the application, complained that it was not possible for the Commission to exercise its discretion within the meaning of the settled case-law relied on by the General Court, given that it is only appropriate to speak of the exercise of discretion if the assessment itself is fair and if there is something which can reasonably be assessed.

The Treaty, which is a higher-ranking norm than the case-law, provides that the Commission is to guarantee the effectiveness of EU law.

In the present case, the agent of the European Union (European Union body) which made the assessment has deprived the appellant of its fundamental right to assess and itself to decide on questions which cannot in themselves be the subject of assessment, instead of the Commission’s doing so, in advance and in an unfair manner; that is to say, rather than exercising its discretion, the agent itself decided on the appellant’s case on the basis of false findings of fact.

The appellant considers that neither the national court nor the European Commission can assess whether or not, where Article 101 TFEU is applicable, Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the application of that article must be applied, and nor can the Commission decide that the refusal to apply a regulation of the European Union (unequivocal case of failure to apply) is equivalent to the concept of ‘application in another way’. In itself, that finding alone demonstrates the breach of the right of the appellant to fair administration and, consequently, the failure to provide an effective judicial procedure and a lawful judge.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/15

---

Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-589/14)

(2015/C 073/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that in maintaining provisions under which:






  — | as regards interest payable on unsecured debts, an investment company established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) is subject to the payment of withholding tax on that interest, whereas an investment company established in Belgium benefits from an exemption from that tax, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Declare that in maintaining provisions under which:

—

as regards interest payable on unsecured debts, an investment company established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) is subject to the payment of withholding tax on that interest, whereas an investment company established in Belgium benefits from an exemption from that tax, and

| — | as regards interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities, the interest is subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the EEA, whereas that interest is exempt from withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution in Belgium,
  the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities, the interest is subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the EEA, whereas that interest is exempt from withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution in Belgium,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the EEA.

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that various provisions of the Royal Decree implementing the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992 make possible exemptions from withholding tax payable on interest subject to conditions that are not compatible with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties, namely Articles 56 and 63 TFEU.

First, as regards the interest payable on unsecured debts, an investment company established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the EEA would be subject the payment of withholding tax on that interest, whereas an investment company established in Belgium would benefit from an exemption from that tax.

Second, as regards the interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities, that interest would be subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the Union or a State belonging to the EEA, whereas such interest would be exempt from withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an investment company in Belgium.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/16

---

Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-591/14)

(2015/C 073/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and B. Stromsky, Acting as agents, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing, within the period prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011, concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (1), and by failing to inform the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing, within the period prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011, concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (1), and by failing to inform the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU.

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By Commission Decision 2011/678/EU concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Commission declared aid granted by Belgium to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market.

The period prescribed by the decision for the recovery of the aid declared to be illegal expired on 28 November 2011, without the complete recovery of those aids having taken place.

At the date on which the present action was lodged, the defendant had still not adopted the necessary measures to recover the aid granted to the beneficiary companies, nor communicated to the Commission all the information requested.

---

(1)  OJ L 2011 274, p. 36.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2014 — Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-593/14)

(2015/C 073/23)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

‘Does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU), preclude a Member State from not allowing a resident company a tax exemption for interest income where an affiliated company within the same group established in another Member State is not entitled to a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure as a result of rules (as in the present case) in the relevant Member State on interest deduction limitation in cases of thin capitalisation, where the Member State allows a resident company a tax exemption for interest income in cases where an affiliated company within the same group in that same Member State is not allowed a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure as a result of national rules (as in the present case) on interest deduction limitation in cases of thin capitalisation?’

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/17

---

Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union

(Case C-600/14)

(2015/C 073/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/699/EU of 24 June 2014 in so far as it refers to the amendment of Article 12 of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF — Basic Convention) and of Appendices B (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of International Carriage of Goods by Rail — CIM), D (Uniform Rules concerning Contracts of Use of Vehicles in International Rail Traffic — CUV) and E (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of Use of Infrastructure in International Rail Traffic — CUI) thereto (Article 1 of the decision in conjunction with point 3, items 4 (in so far as Article 12 of the COTIF — Basic Convention is affected), 5, 7 and 12 of the annex), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/699/EU of 24 June 2014 in so far as it refers to the amendment of Article 12 of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF — Basic Convention) and of Appendices B (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of International Carriage of Goods by Rail — CIM), D (Uniform Rules concerning Contracts of Use of Vehicles in International Rail Traffic — CUV) and E (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of Use of Infrastructure in International Rail Traffic — CUI) thereto (Article 1 of the decision in conjunction with point 3, items 4 (in so far as Article 12 of the COTIF — Basic Convention is affected), 5, 7 and 12 of the annex), and

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | In the opinion of the German Government, Articles 91 and 218(9) TFEU do not confer on the European Union the competence to develop a common position relating to all the rules which were the subject of consultation and decision-making on the occasion of the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee. Therefore, by adopting the decision, the Council infringed the principle of conferral pursuant to the first sentence of Article 5(2) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the opinion of the German Government, Articles 91 and 218(9) TFEU do not confer on the European Union the competence to develop a common position relating to all the rules which were the subject of consultation and decision-making on the occasion of the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee. Therefore, by adopting the decision, the Council infringed the principle of conferral pursuant to the first sentence of Article 5(2) TEU.

| 2. | Furthermore, the statement of reasons of the contested decision is defective because it is not sufficiently clear from that decision why the European Union has the competence to develop a common position relating to all the rules which were the subject of consultation and decision-making at the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Furthermore, the statement of reasons of the contested decision is defective because it is not sufficiently clear from that decision why the European Union has the competence to develop a common position relating to all the rules which were the subject of consultation and decision-making at the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee.

| 3. | In addition, by adopting the contested measure only one day before the start of the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee, the Council infringed the principle of sincere cooperation in conjunction with the principle of effective legal protection. As a result, the Federal Republic of Germany was deprived of any opportunity to bring the matter before the Court of Justice in due time in order to obtain (interim) legal protection against the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In addition, by adopting the contested measure only one day before the start of the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee, the Council infringed the principle of sincere cooperation in conjunction with the principle of effective legal protection. As a result, the Federal Republic of Germany was deprived of any opportunity to bring the matter before the Court of Justice in due time in order to obtain (interim) legal protection against the contested decision.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S

(Case C-611/14)

(2015/C 073/25)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Retten i Glostrup

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

Defendant: Canal Digital Danmark A/S

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, etc. (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) to be interpreted as precluding a national scheme such as that provided for in Paragraph 3 of the Danish Markedsføringsloven, which prohibits misleading marketing practices, including in connection with invitations to purchase, but which neither in Paragraph 3 or elsewhere in the law refers to the limitations arising as a result of Article 7(1) of the Directive, under which account is to be taken of whether a marketing practice omits material information, that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision, and as a result of Article 7(3), under which account should be taken of the fact that the communications medium used imposes limitations of time and space? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, etc. (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) to be interpreted as precluding a national scheme such as that provided for in Paragraph 3 of the Danish Markedsføringsloven, which prohibits misleading marketing practices, including in connection with invitations to purchase, but which neither in Paragraph 3 or elsewhere in the law refers to the limitations arising as a result of Article 7(1) of the Directive, under which account is to be taken of whether a marketing practice omits material information, that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision, and as a result of Article 7(3), under which account should be taken of the fact that the communications medium used imposes limitations of time and space?

| 2. | Is Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading practice if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading practice if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner?

| 3. | Is Article 7 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading omission under Article 7 of the Directive if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 7 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading omission under Article 7 of the Directive if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner?

| 4. | In the assessment of whether a marketing practice is misleading in a situation such as that described in questions 2 and 3, is account to be taken of whether the abovementioned marketing practice:






  a) | states the total price for the subscription in the commitment period, including the six-month charge,
  and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

In the assessment of whether a marketing practice is misleading in a situation such as that described in questions 2 and 3, is account to be taken of whether the abovementioned marketing practice:

a)

states the total price for the subscription in the commitment period, including the six-month charge,

and/or

| b) | is done through advertisements or publicity on the Internet, where reference is made to the trader’s website, where the six-month charge and/or the total price for the subscription, including the six-month charge, is stated? |
| --- | --- |

b)

is done through advertisements or publicity on the Internet, where reference is made to the trader’s website, where the six-month charge and/or the total price for the subscription, including the six-month charge, is stated?

| 5. | Does it have any bearing on the answers to questions 2 and 3 if the marketing takes place in a television advertisement? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does it have any bearing on the answers to questions 2 and 3 if the marketing takes place in a television advertisement?

| 6. | Does Article 7(4) of the Directive contain an exhaustive enumeration of what information is material for an invitation to purchase? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does Article 7(4) of the Directive contain an exhaustive enumeration of what information is material for an invitation to purchase?

| 7. | If question 6 is answered in the affirmative, does Article 7(4) of the Directive rule out the possibility that an invitation to purchase — which states the total price the consumer will have to pay for the first year of the subscription’s contract period (commitment period) — can be regarded as a misleading marketing practice under Article 7(1) and (2) or Article 6 of the Directive if, for example, further information is given about certain — but not all — components of the product’s price? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If question 6 is answered in the affirmative, does Article 7(4) of the Directive rule out the possibility that an invitation to purchase — which states the total price the consumer will have to pay for the first year of the subscription’s contract period (commitment period) — can be regarded as a misleading marketing practice under Article 7(1) and (2) or Article 6 of the Directive if, for example, further information is given about certain — but not all — components of the product’s price?

---

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

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/19

---

Action brought on 6 January 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-1/15)

(2015/C 073/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by adopting and maintaining Paragraph 1(2)(1), Paragraph 2(1)(9), Paragraph 10(3)(4), Paragraph 14 in conjunction with Paragraph 14a and Paragraph 14b as well as Paragraph 21(1) and Paragraph 21a of the Bundesgesetz über die Niederlassung und den Aufenthalt in Österreich (Federal Law on establishment and residence in Austria), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol (1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by adopting and maintaining Paragraph 1(2)(1), Paragraph 2(1)(9), Paragraph 10(3)(4), Paragraph 14 in conjunction with Paragraph 14a and Paragraph 14b as well as Paragraph 21(1) and Paragraph 21a of the Bundesgesetz über die Niederlassung und den Aufenthalt in Österreich (Federal Law on establishment and residence in Austria), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol (1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80;

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Some of the provisions of the Federal Law on establishment and residence in Austria are incompatible with EU law, in so far as they concern Turkish nationals. Those include, in particular:

| — | the duty of the applicant to make the initial application to enter Austrian territory to the competent local representing authority abroad and to await the decision abroad; |
| --- | --- |

—

the duty of the applicant to make the initial application to enter Austrian territory to the competent local representing authority abroad and to await the decision abroad;

| — | the fixing of a minimum age of 21 years for the application for a right of residence under the title of family reunification; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fixing of a minimum age of 21 years for the application for a right of residence under the title of family reunification;

| — | the proof of knowledge of the German language upon submission of the initial application for a residence permit and the introduction of an ‘integration agreement’. |
| --- | --- |

—

the proof of knowledge of the German language upon submission of the initial application for a residence permit and the introduction of an ‘integration agreement’.

The Republic of Austria’s objection that, by a circular letter of the Bundesministerium für Inneres (Federal Ministry of the Interior), it instructed the establishment and residence authorities to subject applications from Turkish nationals to a case-by-case examination in conformity with EU law cannot remedy the infringement of the obligations under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80.

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of the Council of 19 December 1972 concluding the Additional Protocol and also the Financial Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 and annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to the measures to be adopted to bring them into force; OJ 1972 L 293, p. 1.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/20

---

Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order brought on 12 January 2015 — La Chaine hôtelière La Frontière, Shotef SPRL v European Commission

(Case C-1/15 SA)

(2015/C 073/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: La Chaine hôtelière La Frontière, Shotef SPRL (represented by: J. Steyt, avocat)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the present application to be admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present application to be admissible and well founded;

Consequently:

| — | primarily, authorise the applicant to maintain and continue the attachment order already served and to serve other attachment orders on the European Union/European Commission for all sums, funds, assets or objects generally that it has or will subsequently have in its possession, owes or will subsequently owe for any reason and on any grounds whatever to the Democratic Republic of Congo; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, authorise the applicant to maintain and continue the attachment order already served and to serve other attachment orders on the European Union/European Commission for all sums, funds, assets or objects generally that it has or will subsequently have in its possession, owes or will subsequently owe for any reason and on any grounds whatever to the Democratic Republic of Congo;

| — | in the alternative, authorise the applicant to maintain and continue the attachment order already served and to serve other attachment orders on the European Union/European Commission for all sums, funds, assets or objects generally that it has or will subsequently have in its possession, owes or will subsequently owe on the basis of a private contract to the Democratic Republic of Congo; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, authorise the applicant to maintain and continue the attachment order already served and to serve other attachment orders on the European Union/European Commission for all sums, funds, assets or objects generally that it has or will subsequently have in its possession, owes or will subsequently owe on the basis of a private contract to the Democratic Republic of Congo;

In any event:

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-509/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to privacy - Proportionality)

(2015/C 073/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 74), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56) and Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-109/12) (1)

(Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Time-limit for adopting a decision)

(2015/C 073/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, acting as Agent, assisted initially by J. Rivas Andrés and X. M. García García, and subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin — Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin — Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin — Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040);

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-111/12) (1)

(Cohesion Fund - Reduction of the financial assistance - Time-limit for adopting a decision)

(2015/C 073/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, acting as Agent, and initially by J. Rivas Andrés and X.M. García García, and subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the projects ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043), ‘Water supply and sewer systems in the Duero river basin — 2001’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070), ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Valencia — 2001 — Group II’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026) and ‘Sanitation systems and waste water treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the projects ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043), ‘Water supply and sewer systems in the Duero river basin — 2001’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070), ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Valencia — 2001 — Group II’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026) and ‘Sanitation systems and waste water treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the projects ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043), ‘Water supply and sewer systems in the Duero river basin — 2001’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070), ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Valencia — 2001 — Group II’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026) and ‘Sanitation systems and waste water treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036);

| 2. | orders the commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA)

(Case T-46/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA - Earlier Community figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15 and Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark)

(2015/C 073/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sabores de Navarra, AIE (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, O. González Fernández and L. Estropa Navarro, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Frutas Solano, SA (Calahorra, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2012 (Joined Cases R 2542/2011-2 and R 2550/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sabores de Navarra, AIE and Frutas Solano, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sabores de Navarra, AIE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sabores de Navarra, AIE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — easyJet Airline v Commission

(Case T-355/13) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Airport services market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Case dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - Rejection of the complaint on priority grounds - Decision of the competition authority drawing conclusions, in competition law, from an investigation conducted under national legislation applicable to the sector in question - Obligation to state reasons)

(2015/C 073/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Werner and R. Marian, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Luchthaven Schiphol NV (Schiphol, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree, G. Hakopian and S. Molin, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 2727 final of 3 May 2013 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against Luchthaven Schiphol NV in relation to alleged anti-competitive conduct in the airport services market (Case COMP/39.869 — easyJet/Schiphol).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders easyJet Airline Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders easyJet Airline Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Schwerdt v OHIM — Iberamigo (cat & clean)

(Case T-587/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark cat & clean - Prior Spanish word mark CLEAN CAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obstacles to the free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2015/C 073/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Miriam Schwerdt (Porta-Westfalica, Germany) (represented by: K. Kruse, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Iberamigo, SA (Rubi, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2013 (Case R 1799/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Iberamigo, SA and Ms Miriam Schwerdt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Miriam Schwerdt to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Miriam Schwerdt to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers)

(Case T-615/13) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger - Ground for invalidity - Lack of visibility of part of a complex product - Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2015/C 073/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aic S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, Legal Adviser)

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: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 291/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

(Case T-616/13) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert - Ground for invalidity - Lack of visibility of part of a complex product - Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2015/C 073/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aic S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, Legal Adviser)

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: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 293/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

(Case T-617/13) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert - Ground for invalidity - Lack of visibility of part of a complex product - Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2015/C 073/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aic S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, Legal Adviser)

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: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 688/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)

(Case T-685/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BLUECO - Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2015/C 073/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California, United States) (represented by: V. Dalichau, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2028/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM (Pianissimo)

(Case T-11/14) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Pianissimo - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)

(2015/C 073/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2013 (Case R 441/2013-4), confirming rejection of the application for registration of the word sign Pianissimo as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare)

(Case T-188/14) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark GentleCare - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)

(2015/C 073/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter and M. Neuner, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2014 (Case R 739/2013-5) confirming rejection of the application for registration of the word sign GentleCare as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/30

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

(Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and Case T-440/12) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Competition - Cartels - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Partial manifest inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain) (represented by: in Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Case T-440/12, initially F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, then F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, and, in Case T-440/12, C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents, and in Cases T-426/10 and T-440/12, by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

Re:

Applications for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C (2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | In Case T-426/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In Case T-426/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | In Case T-575/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In Case T-575/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 3. | The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.

| 4. | Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-426/10 and the costs in Case T-575/10. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-426/10 and the costs in Case T-575/10.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/31

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

(Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and Case T-439/12) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Competition - Cartels - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Partial manifest inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Trefilerías Quijano, SA (Los Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by: in Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Case T-439/12, initially F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, then F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, and, in Case T-439/12, C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents, and by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

Re:

Applications for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C (2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | In Case T-427/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In Case T-427/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | In Case T-576/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In Case T-576/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 3. | The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.

| 4. | Trefilerías Quijano, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-427/10 and the costs in Case T-576/10. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Trefilerías Quijano, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-427/10 and the costs in Case T-576/10.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/32

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission

(Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and Case T-441/12) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Competition - Cartels - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Partial manifest inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL (Santander, Spain) (represented by: in Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Case T-441/12, initially F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, then F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, and, in Case T-441/12, C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents, and by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

Re:

Applications for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C (2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | In Case T-428/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In Case T-428/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | In Case T-577/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In Case T-577/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 3. | The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.

| 4. | Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-428/10 and the costs in Case T-577/10. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-428/10 and the costs in Case T-577/10.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/33

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Global Steel Wire v Commission

(Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and Case T-438/12) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Competition - Cartels - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Partial manifest inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: in Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Case T-438/12, initially F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, then F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, and, in Case T-438/12, C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents, and by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

Re:

Applications for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C (2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | In Case T-429/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In Case T-429/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | In Case T-578/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In Case T-578/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 3. | The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.

| 4. | Global Steel Wire, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-429/10 and the costs in Case T-578/10. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Global Steel Wire, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-429/10 and the costs in Case T-578/10.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/34

---

Order of the General Court of 9 January 2015 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case T-482/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Compliance with a judgment of the General Court - Application initiating proceedings - Disregard of formal requirements - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H.-H. Heyland, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, acting as Agents, assisted initially by R. Van der Hout and A. Krämer, and subsequently by R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant full access to the documents in the file relating to the contract LIEN 97-2011 and, in the alternative, application for partial annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 August 2012 in response to the applicant’s letter of 27 July 2012 requesting that the Commission comply with the judgment of 22 May 2012 in Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, T-300/10, EU:T:2012:247.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/35

---

Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission

(Case T-36/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ Programme - ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at introducing new instruments in order to promote funding for cultural and creative industries - Decision to end the project - Measure forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is not separable - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, avocats)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, J. Estrada de Solà and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulation of, first, the Commission’s ‘implicit decision of unknown date’ aimed at ending the project ‘C-I Factor SI2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and, therefore, ending the grant awarded to the consortium of which the applicants form part and, secondly, the ‘explicit decision confirming it’ adopted on 29 November 2013.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles, Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd are ordered to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles, Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd are ordered to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/35

---

Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission

(Case T-93/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ programme - ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at establishing new instruments to encourage the funding of the cultural and creative industries - Debit note - Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands), and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, J. Estrada de Solà and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the ‘decision of an unknown date, formalised on 29 November 2013 by the European Commission’, seeking to recover the sum of EUR 140 500,01 in the context of the ‘C-I Factor SI2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ project, issuing a debit note to that end and insisting, if necessary, on the joint and several liability of the other members of the consortium.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles, Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd shall bear their own respective costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles, Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd shall bear their own respective costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/36

---

Order of the General Court of 7 January 2015 — Freitas v Parliament and Council

(Case T-185/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive 2013/55/EU - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Exclusion of notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36 - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Freitas (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and A. Tamás, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and M. Moore, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ L 354, p. 132).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the European Commission, the Ordem dos Notários (Portuguese notarial professional body) and of the Conseil national des barreaux (French National Bar Council) to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the European Commission, the Ordem dos Notários (Portuguese notarial professional body) and of the Conseil national des barreaux (French National Bar Council) to intervene.

| 3. | Mr Freitas shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Freitas shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/37

---

Action brought on 13 November 2014 — Philips and Philips France v Commission

(Case T-762/14)

(2015/C 073/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Koninklijke Philips NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands); and Philips France (Suresnes, France) (represented by: J. de Pree, S. Molin and A. ter Haar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision, in so far as it concerns Philips; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, in so far as it concerns Philips;

| — | in the alternative, annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Philips in the decision, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Philips in the decision, and

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 in case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that the contacts that Philips engaged in qualified as a restriction of competition by object. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that the contacts that Philips engaged in qualified as a restriction of competition by object.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in that the Commission established that the infringement extended to smart card chips for all applications and was not limited to SIM. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in that the Commission established that the infringement extended to smart card chips for all applications and was not limited to SIM.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that Philips was part of a multilateral cartel together with Infineon, Renesas and Samsung and participated in a single and continuous infringement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that Philips was part of a multilateral cartel together with Infineon, Renesas and Samsung and participated in a single and continuous infringement.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of sound administration and the duty of care in that the Commission did not handle the case fairly and impartially. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of sound administration and the duty of care in that the Commission did not handle the case fairly and impartially.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that, as a result of its conduct of the proceedings, the Commission failed to prove the alleged infringement to the requisite legal standard. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that, as a result of its conduct of the proceedings, the Commission failed to prove the alleged infringement to the requisite legal standard.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 27 of Regulation 1/2003 (1), Article 11 of Regulation 773/2004 (2), Article 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and violation of Philips’ rights of defence in that the Commission failed to disclose important exculpatory evidence. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 27 of Regulation 1/2003 (1), Article 11 of Regulation 773/2004 (2), Article 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and violation of Philips’ rights of defence in that the Commission failed to disclose important exculpatory evidence.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003 in that the Commission was barred from sanctioning the alleged conduct insofar as it took place before 3 September 2004. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003 in that the Commission was barred from sanctioning the alleged conduct insofar as it took place before 3 September 2004.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the Fining Guidelines in that the Commission incorrectly established the relevant value of sales. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the Fining Guidelines in that the Commission incorrectly established the relevant value of sales.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the Fining Guidelines, Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of proportionality in that the Commission applied a disproportionate gravity factor. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the Fining Guidelines, Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of proportionality in that the Commission applied a disproportionate gravity factor.

---

(1)  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] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/38

---

Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

(Case T-763/14)

(2015/C 073/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Holding Soprema (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sopro Bauchemie GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘SOPRAPUR’– International registration designating the European Union No 977 642

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 in Case R 1370/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/39

---

Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

(Case T-775/14)

(2015/C 073/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: the applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘ABTRONIC’ — Application No 8 534 811

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 2060/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/40

---

Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission

(Case T-783/14)

(2015/C 073/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the contested act; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested act; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision to adjust the minimum import price for imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission violated Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (1) and Article 13(1) of Council Regulation No 597/2009 (2) by adjusting the minimum import price without assessing whether the adjusted minimum import price was adequate to eliminate the injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93).

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/40

---

Action brought on 1 December 2014 — Bourdouvali e.a./Council e.a.

(Case T-786/14)

(2015/C 073/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali (Meneou, Cyprus) and 47 other applicants (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union represented by the European Commission, Eurogroup represented by Council of the European Union, European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 16 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 16 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

| — | determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants (48 in total) are depositors and/or shareholders and/or bondholders of the Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd and/or Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. They seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU, for the loss that they have suffered as a result of the measures taken by the defendant institutions imposing a bail-in scheme on the Republic of Cyprus.

The applicants consider that the defendant institutions adopted a bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus which led directly to the loss of their deposits and shareholdings. In the view of the applicants, the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions.

The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme violates the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The applicants also argue that the bail-in scheme infringes the principle of proportionality, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the principle of non-discrimination.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/41

---

Action brought on 8 December 2014 — Unilever v OHIM — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)

(Case T-811/14)

(2015/C 073/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Fair & Lovely’ — Application for registration No 4 045 092

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 1004/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and grant a suspension of the proceedings in Case R 1004/2013-4 pending determination of the national cancellation actions against the prior national registrations and application relied on by Technopharma Ltd. in Spain, Germany, France, the Benelux ant the United Kingdom; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and grant a suspension of the proceedings in Case R 1004/2013-4 pending determination of the national cancellation actions against the prior national registrations and application relied on by Technopharma Ltd. in Spain, Germany, France, the Benelux ant the United Kingdom;

| — | order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/42

---

Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Alfamicro v Commission

(Case T-831/14)

(2015/C 073/54)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de Computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 28 October 2014, adopted in the context of the implementation of Financial Audit 12-DAS-03, concerning Grant Agreement No 238882, with all legal consequences arising therefrom, in particular annulling the debit note included in it, for the amount of EUR 467 131, and issuing credit for the same amount in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 28 October 2014, adopted in the context of the implementation of Financial Audit 12-DAS-03, concerning Grant Agreement No 238882, with all legal consequences arising therefrom, in particular annulling the debit note included in it, for the amount of EUR 467 131, and issuing credit for the same amount in favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. In the context of the Save Energy project, the applicant and the Commission concluded a Grant Agreement for the purpose of co-financing that project. The applicant claims that it met all the objectives of that the project and that the Commission, in the abovementioned decision of 28 October 2014 (‘the contested decision’), only considered formal aspects of a purely accounting and documentary nature, without taking into account the results obtained. Returning the amount demanded constitutes an excessive burden, having regard to the fact that the applicant is an SME, and limits the applicant’s freedom of action, thereby clearly breaching the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. In the context of the Save Energy project, the applicant and the Commission concluded a Grant Agreement for the purpose of co-financing that project. The applicant claims that it met all the objectives of that the project and that the Commission, in the abovementioned decision of 28 October 2014 (‘the contested decision’), only considered formal aspects of a purely accounting and documentary nature, without taking into account the results obtained. Returning the amount demanded constitutes an excessive burden, having regard to the fact that the applicant is an SME, and limits the applicant’s freedom of action, thereby clearly breaching the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and good administration. First, the Commission never objected to the working method adopted by the applicant during the 32 months that the project was carried out. The applicant inferred from this behaviour that the Commission approved of the elements that were provided to it, so that the contested decision seriously undermines legal certainty. Secondly, by failing to detect in time the irregularities alleged in the contested decision, the Commission led the applicant to believe that its behaviour was correct. The conviction thus engendered should be protected under the principle of legitimate expectations, so that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty of supervision and, therefore, its duty of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and good administration. First, the Commission never objected to the working method adopted by the applicant during the 32 months that the project was carried out. The applicant inferred from this behaviour that the Commission approved of the elements that were provided to it, so that the contested decision seriously undermines legal certainty. Secondly, by failing to detect in time the irregularities alleged in the contested decision, the Commission led the applicant to believe that its behaviour was correct. The conviction thus engendered should be protected under the principle of legitimate expectations, so that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty of supervision and, therefore, its duty of good administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of contract, due to serious errors of assessment made by the Commission, since it disregarded the clarifications and arguments put forward by the applicant and made an incorrect assessment of the documentation and information duly submitted by it. By adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed the terms agreed in the Grant Agreement. The applicant considers that it was demonstrated, throughout its communications with the Commission, that the contractual provisions had been fulfilled and that the requirements for obtaining financing under the Save Energy project had been met. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of contract, due to serious errors of assessment made by the Commission, since it disregarded the clarifications and arguments put forward by the applicant and made an incorrect assessment of the documentation and information duly submitted by it. By adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed the terms agreed in the Grant Agreement. The applicant considers that it was demonstrated, throughout its communications with the Commission, that the contractual provisions had been fulfilled and that the requirements for obtaining financing under the Save Energy project had been met.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, given that the reasoning set out in the Commission’s decision is extremely succinct and neither describes nor lists the facts or actions that were the subject of investigation and analysis. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, given that the reasoning set out in the Commission’s decision is extremely succinct and neither describes nor lists the facts or actions that were the subject of investigation and analysis.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/43

---

Action brought on 30 December 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-841/14)

(2015/C 073/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, Abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the demand made by the Commission’s services in their letter of 21 October 2014 for payment of interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the demand made by the Commission’s services in their letter of 21 October 2014 for payment of interest;

| — | in the alternative, determine that the increase provided for in the second and third sentences of Article 11 should not be applied; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, determine that the increase provided for in the second and third sentences of Article 11 should not be applied;

| — | whether or not the above is accepted, in the further alternative to the first head of claim, hold 20 January 2004 to be the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, that is to say, the next working day of the second month following the possible establishment of the debt, 27 November 2003, corresponding to all of the transits covered by the present proceedings, or, failing which, at least in respect of the interest on the customs debt corresponding to the last three transits; and |
| --- | --- |

—

whether or not the above is accepted, in the further alternative to the first head of claim, hold 20 January 2004 to be the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, that is to say, the next working day of the second month following the possible establishment of the debt, 27 November 2003, corresponding to all of the transits covered by the present proceedings, or, failing which, at least in respect of the interest on the customs debt corresponding to the last three transits; and

| — | order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision contained in the Commission’s letter Ares (2014) 3486706 (BUDG/B/02/MTC/IB) of 21 October 2014, by which it applied Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

The origins of the present action are to be found in an investigation by the Netherlands authorities relating to 26 transits dispatched from its customs between April and November 1994 and for which the declared exit from the Community customs territory was through the Spanish customs at Algeciras. Those authorities considered that the goods concerned had eluded customs control by not having exited the territory of the European Union. Subsequently, the Netherlands authorities drew up a new report in relation to 8 transit declarations, casting doubt on the authenticity of the stamps and signatures of the documents that had been furnished as evidence of their completion.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000, in conjunction with Article 9(1), the second paragraph of Article 10(1), Article 6(3) and Article 2, for having been applied by the Commission to a factual situation not envisaged therein.






  — | It is claimed, in this connection, that the case does not concern a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(a) but rather a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(b). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000, in conjunction with Article 9(1), the second paragraph of Article 10(1), Article 6(3) and Article 2, for having been applied by the Commission to a factual situation not envisaged therein.

—

It is claimed, in this connection, that the case does not concern a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(a) but rather a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(b).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty in the application of the second and third sentences of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.






  — | It is claimed, in this connection, that those sentences contemplate an increase of the interest for late payment the purpose of which is not to compensate the damage caused by late payment, and that they possess a coercive force which precludes their being applied in the absence of knowledge on the part of the Member State of the very existence of the obligation complied with belatedly. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty in the application of the second and third sentences of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.

—

It is claimed, in this connection, that those sentences contemplate an increase of the interest for late payment the purpose of which is not to compensate the damage caused by late payment, and that they possess a coercive force which precludes their being applied in the absence of knowledge on the part of the Member State of the very existence of the obligation complied with belatedly.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1150/2000 as regards the setting of the date on which the customs debt fell to be established and therefore the inappropriate setting of the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, since the matters were the subject of judicial proceedings, which means that, in any event, it would have been possible to establish it only following the legal ruling. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1150/2000 as regards the setting of the date on which the customs debt fell to be established and therefore the inappropriate setting of the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, since the matters were the subject of judicial proceedings, which means that, in any event, it would have been possible to establish it only following the legal ruling.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/45

---

Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-848/14 P)

(2015/C 073/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should: uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal in part, delete the reference to Article 270 TFEU, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, and set aside paragraphs 16 to 19, 22, 37, 41, 42, 45, 47 to 49, 51, and 53 to 66 of that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following the adoption of the requested measures of inquiry, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; make any measure of inquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary with regard to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents held to be useful for refuting the arguments raised therein; order the EIB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB.

The appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal.

| 1. | Failure to give a ruling on the request for deletion of the EIB’s observations and documents; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Failure to give a ruling on the request for deletion of the EIB’s observations and documents;

| 2. | Failure to give a ruling on the exclusion of the president of the formation of the court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Failure to give a ruling on the exclusion of the president of the formation of the court;

| 3. | Incorrect interpretation of the judgment in Case T-37/10 P; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Incorrect interpretation of the judgment in Case T-37/10 P;

| 4. | Failure to provide a statement of reasons or provision of an incorrect statement of reasons with regard to the psychological harassment; the appellant asks the Court to order the defendant to cease that harassment; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Failure to provide a statement of reasons or provision of an incorrect statement of reasons with regard to the psychological harassment; the appellant asks the Court to order the defendant to cease that harassment;

| 5. | Need for the Appeals Committee to give its ruling on the merits as regards the 2006 Staff Report; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Need for the Appeals Committee to give its ruling on the merits as regards the 2006 Staff Report;

| 6. | Existence of an interest in the ruling on the annulment of the promotions of 2007, so as to prevent them from becoming definitive. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Existence of an interest in the ruling on the annulment of the promotions of 2007, so as to prevent them from becoming definitive.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/46

---

Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-849/14 P)

(2015/C 073/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should: uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, the assertion that the proceedings are pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, and paragraphs 43, 44, 50, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of the grounds for that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following completion of the requested medical report, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; adopt any measure of inquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary in relation to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents considered useful for refuting the arguments raised therein.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB.

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal.

| 1. | The appellant contests the finding of inadmissibility as regards his head of claim concerning the Appeals Committee as follows: he makes reference to that body’s rules of operation, challenges the Civil Service Tribunal’s assertion that adequate compensation is provided for the harm suffered by removing the annulled measure from his personal file, and alleges an abuse of that court’s judicial powers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appellant contests the finding of inadmissibility as regards his head of claim concerning the Appeals Committee as follows: he makes reference to that body’s rules of operation, challenges the Civil Service Tribunal’s assertion that adequate compensation is provided for the harm suffered by removing the annulled measure from his personal file, and alleges an abuse of that court’s judicial powers.

| 2. | The appellant contests as follows the finding of inadmissibility regarding his head of claim concerning the harassment suffered: he challenges the Civil Service Tribunal’s finding that the application for a declaration was inadmissible, makes reference to that court’s failure to give a ruling on that specific application and its refusal to follow the order for reference, states that the new objections proposed by the EIB in the main proceedings are unlawful, and alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal abused its powers by putting itself in the place of his counsel, deciding that it was better not to examine the claim for compensation because it was covered in a more structured way in Case F-52/11. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The appellant contests as follows the finding of inadmissibility regarding his head of claim concerning the harassment suffered: he challenges the Civil Service Tribunal’s finding that the application for a declaration was inadmissible, makes reference to that court’s failure to give a ruling on that specific application and its refusal to follow the order for reference, states that the new objections proposed by the EIB in the main proceedings are unlawful, and alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal abused its powers by putting itself in the place of his counsel, deciding that it was better not to examine the claim for compensation because it was covered in a more structured way in Case F-52/11.

| 3. | As regards his request for a medical report and for other organisational measures, the appellant emphasises that he never waived his requests for measures of inquiry, which were rejected as unnecessary by the Civil Service Tribunal. Accordingly, once the General Court of the European Union established that the dispute had to be settled on the merits, the Civil Service Tribunal was required to examine all requests timeously submitted, establishing which of them were relevant for the purposes of its decision and adopting the related measures of organisation of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As regards his request for a medical report and for other organisational measures, the appellant emphasises that he never waived his requests for measures of inquiry, which were rejected as unnecessary by the Civil Service Tribunal. Accordingly, once the General Court of the European Union established that the dispute had to be settled on the merits, the Civil Service Tribunal was required to examine all requests timeously submitted, establishing which of them were relevant for the purposes of its decision and adopting the related measures of organisation of the procedure.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/47

---

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)

(Case T-5/15)

(2015/C 073/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ — Application for registration No 10 610 491

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 491 ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 491 ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/47

---

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)

(Case T-6/15)

(2015/C 073/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, lawyer, and F. Miazzetto, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean ibiza’ — Application for registration No 10 610 525

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 525 ‘ocean ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 525 ‘ocean ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/48

---

Appeal brought on 11 January 2015 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-52/11 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-10/15 P)

(2015/C 073/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: C. De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Isola, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should: reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, along with paragraphs 5, 7, 14, 16 to 21, 24 to 27, 29, 32, 35 to 37, 39 to 43, 46 to 55, 57 to 59, 62 to 66, 68, 69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 87 to 91, 93, 95 to 100, 103, 106, 107, 109 to 112, 117, 120, 124, 142, 144, 145, 148 to 153, 161 to 170, 175 to 182 and 184 to 193 of that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following completion of the requested medical report, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; make any measure of enquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary with regard to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents held to be useful for refuting the arguments raised therein; order the EIB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal:

| 1. | The contested measures contain no statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The contested measures contain no statement of reasons.

| 2. | Regarding the annulment of the measures related to the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision and of the measures used by the Committee of Inquiry, the appellant claims that that decision is inadmissible, given that the application specifically concerned all the unnecessary measures used by the Committee of Inquiry. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regarding the annulment of the measures related to the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision and of the measures used by the Committee of Inquiry, the appellant claims that that decision is inadmissible, given that the application specifically concerned all the unnecessary measures used by the Committee of Inquiry.

| 3. | Regarding the request for a declaration of mobbing, the appellant contests the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision on the ground of specious reasoning, in so far as the declaration that a breach of contract occurred to his detriment is certainly not an injunction issued against the EIB; nor is it even a declaration of principle. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Regarding the request for a declaration of mobbing, the appellant contests the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision on the ground of specious reasoning, in so far as the declaration that a breach of contract occurred to his detriment is certainly not an injunction issued against the EIB; nor is it even a declaration of principle.

| 4. | Regarding the request for an order to cease mobbing, the appellant asserts that the alleged prohibition on injunctions cannot be absolute, but must necessarily be lifted in the event of conduct which interferes with human dignity and fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Regarding the request for an order to cease mobbing, the appellant asserts that the alleged prohibition on injunctions cannot be absolute, but must necessarily be lifted in the event of conduct which interferes with human dignity and fundamental rights.

| 5. | Regarding the request for compensation for the harm resulting from mobbing, the appellant emphasises the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal revokes his submissions to the Committee of Inquiry and observes that the EIB is not required to do anything, because there is no ruling giving an order to that effect and, since the Committee’s decision is not mandatory, it is not binding; nor is it even a procedural requirement. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Regarding the request for compensation for the harm resulting from mobbing, the appellant emphasises the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal revokes his submissions to the Committee of Inquiry and observes that the EIB is not required to do anything, because there is no ruling giving an order to that effect and, since the Committee’s decision is not mandatory, it is not binding; nor is it even a procedural requirement.

| 6. | Regarding the request for compensation for the harms considered per se, the appellant asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal errs in criticising him for not having specified any error of law, and contests the payment of and reasons for awarding EUR 3 000 by way of compensation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Regarding the request for compensation for the harms considered per se, the appellant asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal errs in criticising him for not having specified any error of law, and contests the payment of and reasons for awarding EUR 3 000 by way of compensation.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/50

---

Action brought on 9 January 2015 — Internet Consulting v OHIM — Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL)

(Case T-11/15)

(2015/C 073/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Internet Consulting GmbH (Brunico, Italy) (represented by: L. Miori and A. Bertella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (Bolzano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Internet Consulting GmbH

Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘SUEDTIROL’ — Community trade mark No 2 826 931

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014 in Case R 574/2013-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul or alter in full the contested decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014, notified on 13 November 2014, refusing in any event the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano in respect of the Community trade mark Suedtirol; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul or alter in full the contested decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014, notified on 13 November 2014, refusing in any event the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano in respect of the Community trade mark Suedtirol;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal before OHIM and the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal before OHIM and the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement and/or misapplication of Articles 5 and 56 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement and/or misapplication of Articles 5 and 56 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement and misapplication of Articles 7(1)(c), 12 and 52 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement and misapplication of Articles 7(1)(c), 12 and 52 of that regulation.

---

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/50

---

Order of the General Court of 12 January 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-259/14) (1)

(2015/C 073/62)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---