# Official Journal C 15/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.015.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 15 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5718 January 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.015.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 15

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5718 January 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2014/C 015/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 9, 11.1.2014 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 015/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 9, 11.1.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 015/02 | Case C-510/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 25 September 2013 — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt. v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal | 2 |
| 2014/C 015/03 | Case C-529/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur | 3 |
| 2014/C 015/04 | Case C-530/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres | 3 |
| 2014/C 015/05 | Case C-531/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Kornhuber and Others | 5 |
| 2014/C 015/06 | Case C-532/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség | 5 |
| 2014/C 015/07 | Case C-543/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v E. Fischer-Lintjens | 6 |
| 2014/C 015/08 | Case C-544/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket Farmaci AB | 6 |
| 2014/C 015/09 | Case C-545/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB | 7 |
| 2014/C 015/10 | Case C-553/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS v Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet | 8 |
| 2014/C 015/11 | Case C-555/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Limited and Others | 9 |
| 2014/C 015/12 | Case C-557/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of ECZ Autohandel GmbH | 9 |
| 2014/C 015/13 | Case C-565/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för västra Sverige (Sweden) lodged on 4 November 2013 — Kammaråklagaren v Ove Ahlström, Lennart Kjellberg, Fiskeri AB Ganthi and Fiskeri AB Nordic | 9 |
| 2014/C 015/14 | Case C-569/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket | 10 |
| 2014/C 015/15 | Case C-575/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2013 — Thomas Etzold and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 10 |
| 2014/C 015/16 | Case C-585/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2013 by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-434/11: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union | 11 |
| 2014/C 015/17 | Case C-587/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2013 in Case T-429/11 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission | 12 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 015/18 | Case T-374/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Lorenz Shoe Group v OHIM — Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making (Ganeder) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark Ganeder — Earlier community word mark Ganter — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2014/C 015/19 | Case T-34/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark HERBA SHINE — Earlier national, Community and international word marks Herbacin — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Statement of reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2014/C 015/20 | Case T-410/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Vitaminaqua v OHIM — Energy Brands (vitaminaqua) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua — Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER — Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 15 |
| 2014/C 015/21 | Case T-424/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Gaumina v EIGE (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of services to support the communication activities of the EIGE — Rejection of a tender — Obligation to state reasons) | 15 |
| 2014/C 015/22 | Case T-162/12: Order of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Trabelsi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Extension of asset-freezing — Annulment of initial asset-freezing measures — No need to adjudicate) | 16 |
| 2014/C 015/23 | Case T-545/12: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — Mory and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Traditional and express couriers — Decision not to extend the obligation of repayment to the potential purchasers of the beneficiary in composition with creditors — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 16 |
| 2014/C 015/24 | Case T-42/13: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2013 — 1. garantovaná v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Fines — Late-payment interest — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility) | 17 |
| 2014/C 015/25 | Case T-229/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 17 |
| 2014/C 015/26 | Case T-283/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 18 |
| 2014/C 015/27 | Case T-284/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 18 |
| 2014/C 015/28 | Case T-337/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — CSF v Commission (Interim measures — Public health, safety, consumers and workers protection in order to address the risks resulting from the use of machinery — Measure taken by the Danish authorities prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery without an appropriate protective structure — Commission decision declaring the measure to be justified — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency) | 19 |
| 2014/C 015/29 | Case T-539/13: Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission | 19 |
| 2014/C 015/30 | Case T-234/08: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council | 20 |
| 2014/C 015/31 | Case T-485/09: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — France v Commission | 20 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2014/C 015/32 | Case F-105/13: Action brought on 22 October 2013 — ZZ and Others v Court of Auditors | 21 |
| 2014/C 015/33 | Case F-109/13: Action brought on 4th November 2013 — ZZ v ENISA | 21 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 015/02

Case C-510/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 25 September 2013 — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt. v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

2

2014/C 015/03

Case C-529/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

3

2014/C 015/04

Case C-530/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres

3

2014/C 015/05

Case C-531/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Kornhuber and Others

5

2014/C 015/06

Case C-532/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

5

2014/C 015/07

Case C-543/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v E. Fischer-Lintjens

6

2014/C 015/08

Case C-544/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket Farmaci AB

6

2014/C 015/09

Case C-545/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB

7

2014/C 015/10

Case C-553/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS v Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet

8

2014/C 015/11

Case C-555/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Limited and Others

9

2014/C 015/12

Case C-557/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

9

2014/C 015/13

Case C-565/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för västra Sverige (Sweden) lodged on 4 November 2013 — Kammaråklagaren v Ove Ahlström, Lennart Kjellberg, Fiskeri AB Ganthi and Fiskeri AB Nordic

9

2014/C 015/14

Case C-569/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket

10

2014/C 015/15

Case C-575/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2013 — Thomas Etzold and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

10

2014/C 015/16

Case C-585/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2013 by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-434/11: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union

11

2014/C 015/17

Case C-587/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2013 in Case T-429/11 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission

12

General Court

2014/C 015/18

Case T-374/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Lorenz Shoe Group v OHIM — Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making (Ganeder) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark Ganeder — Earlier community word mark Ganter — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

14

2014/C 015/19

Case T-34/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark HERBA SHINE — Earlier national, Community and international word marks Herbacin — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Statement of reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

14

2014/C 015/20

Case T-410/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Vitaminaqua v OHIM — Energy Brands (vitaminaqua) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua — Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER — Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

15

2014/C 015/21

Case T-424/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Gaumina v EIGE (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of services to support the communication activities of the EIGE — Rejection of a tender — Obligation to state reasons)

15

2014/C 015/22

Case T-162/12: Order of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Trabelsi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Extension of asset-freezing — Annulment of initial asset-freezing measures — No need to adjudicate)

16

2014/C 015/23

Case T-545/12: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — Mory and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Traditional and express couriers — Decision not to extend the obligation of repayment to the potential purchasers of the beneficiary in composition with creditors — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

16

2014/C 015/24

Case T-42/13: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2013 — 1. garantovaná v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Fines — Late-payment interest — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

17

2014/C 015/25

Case T-229/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

17

2014/C 015/26

Case T-283/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

18

2014/C 015/27

Case T-284/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

18

2014/C 015/28

Case T-337/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — CSF v Commission (Interim measures — Public health, safety, consumers and workers protection in order to address the risks resulting from the use of machinery — Measure taken by the Danish authorities prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery without an appropriate protective structure — Commission decision declaring the measure to be justified — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

19

2014/C 015/29

Case T-539/13: Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

19

2014/C 015/30

Case T-234/08: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council

20

2014/C 015/31

Case T-485/09: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — France v Commission

20

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2014/C 015/32

Case F-105/13: Action brought on 22 October 2013 — ZZ and Others v Court of Auditors

21

2014/C 015/33

Case F-109/13: Action brought on 4th November 2013 — ZZ v ENISA

21

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/1

---

2014/C 15/01

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

OJ C 9, 11.1.2014

Past publications

OJ C 377, 21.12.2013

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013

OJ C 359, 7.12.2013

OJ C 352, 30.11.2013

OJ C 344, 23.11.2013

OJ C 336, 16.11.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 25 September 2013 — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt. v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

(Case C-510/13)

2014/C 15/02

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt.

Defendant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

Questions referred

| 1. | In proceedings relating to an administrative decision adopted when Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (‘the 2003 Directive’) was in force, do the provisions laid down in Article 25 of that directive, determining who is entitled to bring an action, apply, or are the provisions to be taken into consideration for the purposes of those proceedings those laid down in Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (‘the 2009 Directive’), which entered into force during the proceedings, account being taken of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of that directive, under which those provisions are to be applicable from 3 March 2011? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In proceedings relating to an administrative decision adopted when Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (‘the 2003 Directive’) was in force, do the provisions laid down in Article 25 of that directive, determining who is entitled to bring an action, apply, or are the provisions to be taken into consideration for the purposes of those proceedings those laid down in Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (‘the 2009 Directive’), which entered into force during the proceedings, account being taken of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of that directive, under which those provisions are to be applicable from 3 March 2011?

| 2. | In the event that the 2009 Directive is applicable, can an approved vendor with a financial interest comparable to the interest at stake in the present proceedings, in relation to an action contesting the decision approving a network code or determining its content, be regarded as ‘a party affected’ for the purposes of Article 41(17) of that directive, or can only the network manager who is authorised to seek approval of the code be regarded as ‘a party affected’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the 2009 Directive is applicable, can an approved vendor with a financial interest comparable to the interest at stake in the present proceedings, in relation to an action contesting the decision approving a network code or determining its content, be regarded as ‘a party affected’ for the purposes of Article 41(17) of that directive, or can only the network manager who is authorised to seek approval of the code be regarded as ‘a party affected’?

| 3. | In the event that the 2003 Directive is applicable, does the approval or amendment of the network code, such as that which has taken place in the present case, fall within the situations contemplated in Articles 25(5) and (6), in as much as it refers to the assessment of requests for reserve capacity? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the 2003 Directive is applicable, does the approval or amendment of the network code, such as that which has taken place in the present case, fall within the situations contemplated in Articles 25(5) and (6), in as much as it refers to the assessment of requests for reserve capacity?

| 4. | In the event that the case falls within one of the situations contemplated in Article 25(6) of the 2003 Directive, can an approved vendor with a financial interest comparable to the interest at stake in the present proceedings, in relation to an action contesting the decision approving a network code or determining its content, be regarded as ‘a party affected’ for the purposes of Article 41(17) of that directive, or can only the network manager who is authorised to seek approval of the code be regarded as ‘a party affected’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that the case falls within one of the situations contemplated in Article 25(6) of the 2003 Directive, can an approved vendor with a financial interest comparable to the interest at stake in the present proceedings, in relation to an action contesting the decision approving a network code or determining its content, be regarded as ‘a party affected’ for the purposes of Article 41(17) of that directive, or can only the network manager who is authorised to seek approval of the code be regarded as ‘a party affected’?

| 5. | What interpretation is to be given to Article 25(11) of the 2003 Directive, in accordance with which the claims referred to in Article 25(5) and (6) are to be without prejudice to the exercise of rights of appeal under Community and national law, in the event that it is apparent from the answers to the preceding questions that national law makes the bringing of an action subject to more stringent requirements than those laid down in the directive or in Community law? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What interpretation is to be given to Article 25(11) of the 2003 Directive, in accordance with which the claims referred to in Article 25(5) and (6) are to be without prejudice to the exercise of rights of appeal under Community and national law, in the event that it is apparent from the answers to the preceding questions that national law makes the bringing of an action subject to more stringent requirements than those laid down in the directive or in Community law?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

(Case C-529/13)

2014/C 15/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Felber

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it constitute — for the moment notwithstanding Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the directive’) — (direct) unequal treatment on grounds of age for the purposes of Article 21(1) of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of the directive if periods of study at an intermediate or secondary school are credited as pensionable previous periods only if they were completed after the civil servant reached the age of 18, where those pensionable previous periods are important not only for the pension entitlement but also for the amount of that pension and that pension (total pension) is regarded in national law as the continued payment of remuneration in the context of a public-law employment relationship which still exists even after the civil servant has retired? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it constitute — for the moment notwithstanding Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the directive’) — (direct) unequal treatment on grounds of age for the purposes of Article 21(1) of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of the directive if periods of study at an intermediate or secondary school are credited as pensionable previous periods only if they were completed after the civil servant reached the age of 18, where those pensionable previous periods are important not only for the pension entitlement but also for the amount of that pension and that pension (total pension) is regarded in national law as the continued payment of remuneration in the context of a public-law employment relationship which still exists even after the civil servant has retired?

| 2. | If so, may a civil servant — in the absence of a justification in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive (see question 3 below) — rely on the direct applicability of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2 of the directive in proceedings concerning an application for the crediting of pensionable previous periods even if he is not yet retired at that time, especially since under national law — if the legal position has not changed upon his retirement — the legal force of the rejection of such an application could be held against him in a pension assessment procedure or in the case of a fresh application for the crediting of those periods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, may a civil servant — in the absence of a justification in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive (see question 3 below) — rely on the direct applicability of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2 of the directive in proceedings concerning an application for the crediting of pensionable previous periods even if he is not yet retired at that time, especially since under national law — if the legal position has not changed upon his retirement — the legal force of the rejection of such an application could be held against him in a pension assessment procedure or in the case of a fresh application for the crediting of those periods?

| 3. | If so, is this unequal treatment for the purposes of Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive






  (a) | justified in order to accord to persons whose date of birth lies after the date on which school began in the year they started school or to persons who attend a type of school with an extended upper stage and, for that reason, have to attend school after the age of 18 in order to complete their studies the same conditions as to persons who complete intermediate or secondary school before the age of 18, even if the eligibility of periods of school attendance after the age of 18 are not restricted to the abovementioned cases; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If so, is this unequal treatment for the purposes of Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive

(a)

justified in order to accord to persons whose date of birth lies after the date on which school began in the year they started school or to persons who attend a type of school with an extended upper stage and, for that reason, have to attend school after the age of 18 in order to complete their studies the same conditions as to persons who complete intermediate or secondary school before the age of 18, even if the eligibility of periods of school attendance after the age of 18 are not restricted to the abovementioned cases;

| (b) | justified in order to exclude from the entitlement periods in which, in general, no gainful activity takes place and accordingly no contributions are paid? Does such a justification exist irrespective of the fact that at first no contributions are payable also in respect of periods of attendance of intermediate or secondary schools after the age of 18 and in the event of the subsequent crediting of such periods of school attendance a special pension contribution is payable in any case? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

justified in order to exclude from the entitlement periods in which, in general, no gainful activity takes place and accordingly no contributions are paid? Does such a justification exist irrespective of the fact that at first no contributions are payable also in respect of periods of attendance of intermediate or secondary schools after the age of 18 and in the event of the subsequent crediting of such periods of school attendance a special pension contribution is payable in any case?

| (c) | justified because the exclusion of the crediting of pensionable previous periods completed before the age of 18 is to be regarded as equivalent to setting an ‘age for admission to an occupational social security scheme’ within the meaning of Article 6(2) of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

justified because the exclusion of the crediting of pensionable previous periods completed before the age of 18 is to be regarded as equivalent to setting an ‘age for admission to an occupational social security scheme’ within the meaning of Article 6(2) of the directive?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ L 303, p. 16.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres

(Case C-530/13)

2014/C 15/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Leopold Schmitzer

Respondent authority: Bundesministerin für Inneres

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it constitute — for the moment notwithstanding Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the directive’) — (direct) unequal treatment on grounds of age for the purposes of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of the directive if, upon the introduction of a non-discriminatory system of salary advancement for new civil servants, an old civil servant who suffered discrimination under the former legal situation (as a result of the ineligibility, for advancement purposes, of periods completed before the age of 18) may make a request to opt in to the new system and thereby obtain an advancement reference date calculated on a non-discriminatory basis, but the effect of granting such a request under national law is that, because of the slower advancement provided for in the new system, his remuneration status (and thus ultimately the salary payable to him) does not improve, despite the improvement of the advancement reference date, to such an extent that he acquires the same remuneration status as an old civil servant afforded favourable treatment in a discriminatory manner under the former legal situation (who is not required to demonstrate comparable periods before, but after the age of 18, which were already credited to him under the former legal situation) who does not feel compelled to opt in to the new system? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it constitute — for the moment notwithstanding Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the directive’) — (direct) unequal treatment on grounds of age for the purposes of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of the directive if, upon the introduction of a non-discriminatory system of salary advancement for new civil servants, an old civil servant who suffered discrimination under the former legal situation (as a result of the ineligibility, for advancement purposes, of periods completed before the age of 18) may make a request to opt in to the new system and thereby obtain an advancement reference date calculated on a non-discriminatory basis, but the effect of granting such a request under national law is that, because of the slower advancement provided for in the new system, his remuneration status (and thus ultimately the salary payable to him) does not improve, despite the improvement of the advancement reference date, to such an extent that he acquires the same remuneration status as an old civil servant afforded favourable treatment in a discriminatory manner under the former legal situation (who is not required to demonstrate comparable periods before, but after the age of 18, which were already credited to him under the former legal situation) who does not feel compelled to opt in to the new system?

| 2. | If so, may a civil servant — in the absence of a justification in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive (see in particular Question 3 below) — rely on the direct applicability of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2 of the directive in proceedings to determine remuneration status even if he has previously obtained an improvement of the advancement reference date in the new system by making a request to that effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, may a civil servant — in the absence of a justification in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive (see in particular Question 3 below) — rely on the direct applicability of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2 of the directive in proceedings to determine remuneration status even if he has previously obtained an improvement of the advancement reference date in the new system by making a request to that effect?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a distinction, which continues to be maintained upon the introduction of a non-discriminatory system for new civil servants, in respect of the remuneration status of old civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment and who do not opt in, on the one hand, and old civil servants who still suffer discrimination despite opting in, on the other, justified in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive, as a transitional phenomenon, on grounds of procedural economy, or protection of established advantages or legitimate expectations even where






  (a) | the national legislature is not, in regulating the advancement system, required to obtain the approval of parties to the collective bargaining agreement and is obliged merely to act within the fundamental limits of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, which does not necessitate the full protection of established advantages in the form of the complete retention of the earlier system for old civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment and who do not opt in; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a distinction, which continues to be maintained upon the introduction of a non-discriminatory system for new civil servants, in respect of the remuneration status of old civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment and who do not opt in, on the one hand, and old civil servants who still suffer discrimination despite opting in, on the other, justified in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive, as a transitional phenomenon, on grounds of procedural economy, or protection of established advantages or legitimate expectations even where

(a)

the national legislature is not, in regulating the advancement system, required to obtain the approval of parties to the collective bargaining agreement and is obliged merely to act within the fundamental limits of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, which does not necessitate the full protection of established advantages in the form of the complete retention of the earlier system for old civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment and who do not opt in;

| (b) | the national legislature would also have been free, in this connection, to establish equality among old civil servants by crediting periods before the age of 18 whilst retaining the earlier rules on advancement for old civil servants who previously suffered discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the national legislature would also have been free, in this connection, to establish equality among old civil servants by crediting periods before the age of 18 whilst retaining the earlier rules on advancement for old civil servants who previously suffered discrimination;

| (c) | the associated administrative burden would be considerable on account of the large number of requests to be expected but, as far as its expenditure is concerned, does not come anywhere near the total amount of earnings lost and to be lost in future by the civil servants who suffer discrimination in comparison with the civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the associated administrative burden would be considerable on account of the large number of requests to be expected but, as far as its expenditure is concerned, does not come anywhere near the total amount of earnings lost and to be lost in future by the civil servants who suffer discrimination in comparison with the civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment;

| (d) | the transitional periods with the continued existence of unequal treatment between old civil servants last many decades and will also affect the vast majority of all civil servants for a very long time (as a result of the general ‘freeze on recruitment’ of new civil servants in a public-law employment relationship); |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the transitional periods with the continued existence of unequal treatment between old civil servants last many decades and will also affect the vast majority of all civil servants for a very long time (as a result of the general ‘freeze on recruitment’ of new civil servants in a public-law employment relationship);

| (e) | there was a retroactive introduction of the system that impaired, to the detriment of the civil servant, the legal situation which had to be implemented, having regard to the primacy of EU law, at least between 1 January 2004 and 30 August 2010 and was more favourable to the civil servant, which the civil servant had requested be applied to his case even before the amending law was adopted? |
| --- | --- |

(e)

there was a retroactive introduction of the system that impaired, to the detriment of the civil servant, the legal situation which had to be implemented, having regard to the primacy of EU law, at least between 1 January 2004 and 30 August 2010 and was more favourable to the civil servant, which the civil servant had requested be applied to his case even before the amending law was adopted?

If Questions 1 or 2 are answered in the negative or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

| 4. | (a) | Does legislation which provides for a longer advancement period for periods of employment at the beginning of the career and thus makes advancement to the next salary grade more difficult constitute indirect unequal treatment on grounds of age? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

(a)

Does legislation which provides for a longer advancement period for periods of employment at the beginning of the career and thus makes advancement to the next salary grade more difficult constitute indirect unequal treatment on grounds of age?

| (b) | If so, is it appropriate and necessary in the light of the small amount of professional experience at the beginning of the career? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If so, is it appropriate and necessary in the light of the small amount of professional experience at the beginning of the career?

If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

| 5. | (a) | Does legislation which credits the full value of ‘other periods’ for up to three years, and half the value of such periods for up to a further three years, even where they are not for the purposes of either school education or gaining professional experience, constitute discrimination on grounds of age? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

(a)

Does legislation which credits the full value of ‘other periods’ for up to three years, and half the value of such periods for up to a further three years, even where they are not for the purposes of either school education or gaining professional experience, constitute discrimination on grounds of age?

| (b) | If so, is it justified in order to avoid a deterioration in the remuneration status of civil servants (who clearly also include new civil servants) who do not have suitable eligible periods before the age of 18 even though eligibility also covers other periods after the age of 18? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If so, is it justified in order to avoid a deterioration in the remuneration status of civil servants (who clearly also include new civil servants) who do not have suitable eligible periods before the age of 18 even though eligibility also covers other periods after the age of 18?

| 6. | If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 4(b) is answered in the negative and, at the same time, Question 3 is answered in the affirmative or Question 5(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 5(b) in the negative:
  Do the discriminatory characteristics of the new rules which then exist mean that the unequal treatment of old civil servants is no longer justified as a transitional phenomenon? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 4(b) is answered in the negative and, at the same time, Question 3 is answered in the affirmative or Question 5(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 5(b) in the negative:

Do the discriminatory characteristics of the new rules which then exist mean that the unequal treatment of old civil servants is no longer justified as a transitional phenomenon?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Kornhuber and Others

(Case C-531/13)

2014/C 15/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marktgemeinde Straßwalchen, Heinrich Kornhuber, Helga Kornhuber, Karoline Pöckl, Heinz Kornhuber, Marianne Kornhuber, Wolfgang Kornhuber, Andrea Kornhuber, Alois Herzog, Elfriede Herzog, Katrin Herzog, Stefan Asen, Helmut Zopf, Ingrid Zopf, Silvia Zopf, Daniel Zopf, Maria Zopf, Anton Zopf sen., Paula Loibichler, Theresa Baumann, Josep Schindlauer, Christine Schindlauer, Barbara Schindlauer, Bernhard Schindlauer, Alois Mayrhofer, Daniel Mayrhofer, Georg Rindberger, Maria Rindlberger, Georg Rindlberger sen., Max Herzog, Romana Herzog, Michael Herzog, Markus Herzog, Marianne Herzog, Max Herzog sen., Helmut Lettner, Maria Lettner, Anita Lettner, Alois Lettner sen., Christian Lettner, Sandra Lettner, Anton Nagelseder, Amalie Nagelseder, Josef Nagelseder, Gabriele Schachinger, Thomas Schachinger, Andreas Schinagl, Michaela Schinagl, Lukas Schinagl, Michael Schinagl, Maria Schinagl, Josef Schinagl, Johannn Mayr, Christine Mayr, Martin Mayr, Christian Mayr, Johann Mayr sen., Gerhard Herzog, Anton Mayrhofer, Siegfried Zieher

Defendant authority: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

Intervening party: Rohöl-Aufsuchungs AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the trial extraction of natural gas, for a limited period and in a limited quantity, which is carried out in the context of an exploratory drilling operation designed to establish whether the permanent extraction of natural gas would be economically viable constitute an ‘extraction of ... natural gas for commercial purposes’ within the meaning of Annex I, no 14, to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Directive 85/337)? (2)

  If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, the following further questions arise: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the trial extraction of natural gas, for a limited period and in a limited quantity, which is carried out in the context of an exploratory drilling operation designed to establish whether the permanent extraction of natural gas would be economically viable constitute an ‘extraction of ... natural gas for commercial purposes’ within the meaning of Annex I, no 14, to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Directive 85/337)? (2)

If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, the following further questions arise:

| 2. | Does Annex I, no 14, to Directive 85/337 preclude a provision of national law which, with regard to the extraction of natural gas, does not relate the threshold figures in Annex I, no 14, to Directive 85/337 to extraction (‘Gewinnung’) as such, but to ‘extraction per probe’ (‘Förderung pro Sonde’)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Annex I, no 14, to Directive 85/337 preclude a provision of national law which, with regard to the extraction of natural gas, does not relate the threshold figures in Annex I, no 14, to Directive 85/337 to extraction (‘Gewinnung’) as such, but to ‘extraction per probe’ (‘Förderung pro Sonde’)?

| 3. | Is Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which an application is being made for authorisation for the trial extraction of natural gas in the context of an exploratory drilling operation, the authority, in order to determine whether there is an obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment, must examine, as to their cumulative effect, only all projects of the same kind, specifically, all drilling sites which have been opened in the municipal district? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which an application is being made for authorisation for the trial extraction of natural gas in the context of an exploratory drilling operation, the authority, in order to determine whether there is an obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment, must examine, as to their cumulative effect, only all projects of the same kind, specifically, all drilling sites which have been opened in the municipal district?

---

(1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 114.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

(Case C-532/13)

2014/C 15/06

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sofia Zoo

Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Article 11(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, (1) must permits and certificates be deemed void only in respect of the specimens actually affected by a ground for invalidity, or in respect also of the other specimens covered by the permit or certificate? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 11(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, (1) must permits and certificates be deemed void only in respect of the specimens actually affected by a ground for invalidity, or in respect also of the other specimens covered by the permit or certificate?

| 2. | Does Article 11(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provide that all the specimens covered by the permits or certificates deemed void in accordance with Article 11(2)(a) must be seized, and may be confiscated, or only those which are actually affected by the ground for invalidity? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 11(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provide that all the specimens covered by the permits or certificates deemed void in accordance with Article 11(2)(a) must be seized, and may be confiscated, or only those which are actually affected by the ground for invalidity?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1).

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v E. Fischer-Lintjens

(Case C-543/13)

2014/C 15/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Respondent: E. Fischer-Lintjens

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the term ‘payable’, as used in Article 27 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the decisive factor for the purpose of determining the point in time from which a pension is payable is the date of the decision to make an award, after which the pension is paid, or the commencement date of the pension awarded with retroactive effect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the term ‘payable’, as used in Article 27 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the decisive factor for the purpose of determining the point in time from which a pension is payable is the date of the decision to make an award, after which the pension is paid, or the commencement date of the pension awarded with retroactive effect?

| 2. | If the term ‘payable’ refers to the commencement date of the pension awarded with retroactive effect:
  Can this be reconciled with the fact that the person entitled to receive the pension who comes under Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 cannot, under Netherlands legislation, take out medical care insurance with the same retroactive effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the term ‘payable’ refers to the commencement date of the pension awarded with retroactive effect:

Can this be reconciled with the fact that the person entitled to receive the pension who comes under Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 cannot, under Netherlands legislation, take out medical care insurance with the same retroactive effect?

---

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

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket Farmaci AB

(Case C-544/13)

2014/C 15/08

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Stockholms tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abcur AB

Defendant: Apoteket Farmaci AB

Questions referred

| 1. | Can a prescription-only medicinal product for human use which is used only in emergency health care, for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authority in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, (1) and which is prepared by an operator such as that involved in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court) and ordered by health care institutions on the conditions material to the case before the Stockholms tingsrätt, be covered by any of the exceptions in Article 3(1) or (2) of Directive 2001/83 (2) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, in particular in a situation where there is another authorised medicinal product with the same active substance, same dosage and same pharmaceutical form? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can a prescription-only medicinal product for human use which is used only in emergency health care, for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authority in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, (1) and which is prepared by an operator such as that involved in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court) and ordered by health care institutions on the conditions material to the case before the Stockholms tingsrätt, be covered by any of the exceptions in Article 3(1) or (2) of Directive 2001/83 (2) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, in particular in a situation where there is another authorised medicinal product with the same active substance, same dosage and same pharmaceutical form?

| 2. | If a prescription-only medicinal product for human use such as that referred to in question 1 is covered by Article 3(1), 3(2) or 5(1) of Directive 2001/83, may legislation on advertising measures for medicinal products be regarded as non-harmonised or are the kind of measures which are purported in this case to constitute advertising governed by Directive 2006/114 (3) concerning misleading and comparative advertising? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a prescription-only medicinal product for human use such as that referred to in question 1 is covered by Article 3(1), 3(2) or 5(1) of Directive 2001/83, may legislation on advertising measures for medicinal products be regarded as non-harmonised or are the kind of measures which are purported in this case to constitute advertising governed by Directive 2006/114 (3) concerning misleading and comparative advertising?

| 3. | If Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is applicable in accordance with question 2, under what basic conditions do the measures under consideration before the Stockholms tingsrätt (use of a product name, product number and AnatomicTherapeuticChemical code for the medicinal product, application of a fixed price for the medicinal product, supply of information on the medicinal product in the National Substance Register for Medicinal Products (NPL), attachment of an NPL identifier to the medicinal product, dissemination of an information sheet on the medicinal product, supply of the medicinal product via an electronic ordering service for health services and the supply of information on the medicinal product via a publication issued by a national professional organisation) constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2006/114? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is applicable in accordance with question 2, under what basic conditions do the measures under consideration before the Stockholms tingsrätt (use of a product name, product number and AnatomicTherapeuticChemical code for the medicinal product, application of a fixed price for the medicinal product, supply of information on the medicinal product in the National Substance Register for Medicinal Products (NPL), attachment of an NPL identifier to the medicinal product, dissemination of an information sheet on the medicinal product, supply of the medicinal product via an electronic ordering service for health services and the supply of information on the medicinal product via a publication issued by a national professional organisation) constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2006/114?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1).

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

(3)  Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21).

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB

(Case C-545/13)

2014/C 15/09

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Stockholms tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abcur AB

Defendants: Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB

Questions referred

| 1. | Can a prescription-only medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court), for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authority in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, (1) be regarded as constituting a medicinal product within the meaning of either Article 3(1) or Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/83 (2) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, in particular where there is another authorised medicinal product with the same active substance, the same dosage and the same form? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can a prescription-only medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court), for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authority in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, (1) be regarded as constituting a medicinal product within the meaning of either Article 3(1) or Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/83 (2) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, in particular where there is another authorised medicinal product with the same active substance, the same dosage and the same form?

| 2. | If a prescription medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt is covered by Directive 2001/83, can Directive 2005/29 (3) concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market be applicable in parallel with Directive 2001/83 in respect of the purported advertising measures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a prescription medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt is covered by Directive 2001/83, can Directive 2005/29 (3) concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market be applicable in parallel with Directive 2001/83 in respect of the purported advertising measures?

| 3. | If a prescription medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt is covered by Article 3(1), 3(2) or 5(1) of Directive 2001/83, may legislation on advertising measures for medicinal products be regarded as non-harmonised or are the kind of measures which are purported in this case to constitute advertising governed by (i) Directive 2006/114 (4) concerning misleading and comparative advertising and/or (ii) Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If a prescription medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt is covered by Article 3(1), 3(2) or 5(1) of Directive 2001/83, may legislation on advertising measures for medicinal products be regarded as non-harmonised or are the kind of measures which are purported in this case to constitute advertising governed by (i) Directive 2006/114 (4) concerning misleading and comparative advertising and/or (ii) Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices?

| 4. | If Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is applicable in accordance with Question 3, under what basic conditions do the measures under consideration before the Stockholms tingsrätt (use or attachment of a product name, product number and ATC code for the medicinal product, application of a fixed price for the medicinal product, supply of information on the medicinal product in the National Substance Register for Medicinal Products (NPL), attachment of an NPL identifier to the medicinal product, dissemination of an information sheet on the medicinal product and information thereon via an electronic health care ordering service and via an undertakings’ own homepage, supply of information on the medicinal product via a publication issued by a national trade organisation, supply of information on the medicinal product in the Apoteket’s Central Product Register and the associated register (JACA), supply of information on the medicinal product in another national information database for medicinal products (SIL), supply of information via the Apoteket Terminal System (ATS) or similar dispensing system, provision of information on an undertakings own or a competing supplier’s medicinal product in correspondence with doctors’ surgeries and patient organisations, marketing of the medicinal product, measures relating to pharmaceutical checks on the medicinal product and competing medicinal products, failure to notify documented and relevant differences between products, failure to notify the contents of an undertaking’s own medicinal product and the assessment of the medicinal product by the Läkemedelsverket (Swedish Medical Products Agency), failure to inform the health care service of the Läkemedelsverket’s scientific advisory board’s assessment of competing products, to maintain a fixed price level for the medicinal product, to set a validity period of three (3) months for a prescription, to dispense the medicinal product from a pharmacy instead of a competing medicinal product despite the fact that the patient has a prescription for that competing product, and to hinder and prevent market transfers of standardised preparations to the competing medicinal product, including local pharmacies refusing delivery of the competing medicinal product, and application of a fixed price as part of the scheme under which medicines are eligible for subsidies without a prior decision from the national authority) constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2006/114? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is applicable in accordance with Question 3, under what basic conditions do the measures under consideration before the Stockholms tingsrätt (use or attachment of a product name, product number and ATC code for the medicinal product, application of a fixed price for the medicinal product, supply of information on the medicinal product in the National Substance Register for Medicinal Products (NPL), attachment of an NPL identifier to the medicinal product, dissemination of an information sheet on the medicinal product and information thereon via an electronic health care ordering service and via an undertakings’ own homepage, supply of information on the medicinal product via a publication issued by a national trade organisation, supply of information on the medicinal product in the Apoteket’s Central Product Register and the associated register (JACA), supply of information on the medicinal product in another national information database for medicinal products (SIL), supply of information via the Apoteket Terminal System (ATS) or similar dispensing system, provision of information on an undertakings own or a competing supplier’s medicinal product in correspondence with doctors’ surgeries and patient organisations, marketing of the medicinal product, measures relating to pharmaceutical checks on the medicinal product and competing medicinal products, failure to notify documented and relevant differences between products, failure to notify the contents of an undertaking’s own medicinal product and the assessment of the medicinal product by the Läkemedelsverket (Swedish Medical Products Agency), failure to inform the health care service of the Läkemedelsverket’s scientific advisory board’s assessment of competing products, to maintain a fixed price level for the medicinal product, to set a validity period of three (3) months for a prescription, to dispense the medicinal product from a pharmacy instead of a competing medicinal product despite the fact that the patient has a prescription for that competing product, and to hinder and prevent market transfers of standardised preparations to the competing medicinal product, including local pharmacies refusing delivery of the competing medicinal product, and application of a fixed price as part of the scheme under which medicines are eligible for subsidies without a prior decision from the national authority) constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2006/114?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1).

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

(3)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

(4)  Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21).

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS v Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet

(Case C-553/13)

2014/C 15/10

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS

Defendant: Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet

Question referred

| 1. | May the funding of the organisation of public transport in the territory of a local authority be regarded as a specific purpose within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) if the performance and funding of such a task is an obligation of the local authority? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the funding of the organisation of public transport in the territory of a local authority be regarded as a specific purpose within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) if the performance and funding of such a task is an obligation of the local authority?

| 2. | If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC be interpreted as meaning that making provision in national law for an indirect tax which is charged on the sale of excise goods to the final consumer and is used solely for the organisation of public transport is consistent with that provision, if the organisation of public transport is an obligation of the local authority receiving the tax which must be fulfilled regardless of the existence of such an indirect tax, and the level of funding of the organisation of public transport ultimately does not depend automatically on the amount of tax collected, because the amount of the sum allocated to the organisation of public transport is calculated precisely in such a way that if the indirect tax being collected produces more income, the allocation of other funds by the public authorities to the organisation of public transport is reduced to that extent and, conversely, if the sales tax produces less income, the local authority has to increase other funds to that extent for the organisation of public transport, it being possible, however, in the event of the revenue differing from that forecast to change the amount of expenditure on the organisation of public transport by means of amending the local authority’s budget? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC be interpreted as meaning that making provision in national law for an indirect tax which is charged on the sale of excise goods to the final consumer and is used solely for the organisation of public transport is consistent with that provision, if the organisation of public transport is an obligation of the local authority receiving the tax which must be fulfilled regardless of the existence of such an indirect tax, and the level of funding of the organisation of public transport ultimately does not depend automatically on the amount of tax collected, because the amount of the sum allocated to the organisation of public transport is calculated precisely in such a way that if the indirect tax being collected produces more income, the allocation of other funds by the public authorities to the organisation of public transport is reduced to that extent and, conversely, if the sales tax produces less income, the local authority has to increase other funds to that extent for the organisation of public transport, it being possible, however, in the event of the revenue differing from that forecast to change the amount of expenditure on the organisation of public transport by means of amending the local authority’s budget?

| 3. | If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC then be interpreted as meaning that the additional taxation of excise goods by an indirect tax, the particular objective of using which is determined after the time of coming into being of the obligation to pay such an indirect tax, is consistent with that provision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC then be interpreted as meaning that the additional taxation of excise goods by an indirect tax, the particular objective of using which is determined after the time of coming into being of the obligation to pay such an indirect tax, is consistent with that provision?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Limited and Others

(Case C-555/13)

2014/C 15/11

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Merck Canada Inc.

Defendants: Accord Healthcare Limited, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda

Question referred

May Article 13 of Regulation No 469/2009 (1) be interpreted as permitting, by means of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the period for exclusive exploitation of the patented invention to be more than fifteen years from the date of the first authorisation to place the medicinal product in question on the market within the Community (not including the extension provided for in Article 13(3) of that regulation)?

---

(1)  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 (Codified version) (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

(Case C-557/13)

2014/C 15/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Hermann Lutz

Applicant and respondent: Elke Bäuerle as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1436/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, [the Insolvency Regulation]) applicable if the payment challenged by the insolvency administrator of a sum attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings was made only after the opening of the proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1436/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, [the Insolvency Regulation]) applicable if the payment challenged by the insolvency administrator of a sum attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings was made only after the opening of the proceedings?

| 2. | If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative: does the defence under Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation also apply to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the law which governs the dispute concerning the contested legal transaction (lex causae)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative: does the defence under Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation also apply to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the law which governs the dispute concerning the contested legal transaction (lex causae)?

| 3. | If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative: are the relevant procedural requirements for asserting a claim for the purpose of Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation also to be determined according to the lex causae or by the lex fori concursus? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative: are the relevant procedural requirements for asserting a claim for the purpose of Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation also to be determined according to the lex causae or by the lex fori concursus?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för västra Sverige (Sweden) lodged on 4 November 2013 — Kammaråklagaren v Ove Ahlström, Lennart Kjellberg, Fiskeri AB Ganthi and Fiskeri AB Nordic

(Case C-565/13)

2014/C 15/13

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Hovrätten för västra Sverige

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kammaråklagaren

Defendants: Ove Ahlström, Lennart Kjellberg, Fiskeri AB Ganthi and Fiskeri AB Nordic

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 6(1) of the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco exclusive in that it excludes Community vessels from being authorised to fish in Moroccan fishing zones on the basis of licences issued exclusively by the competent Moroccan authorities for Moroccan owners of fishing quotas? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 6(1) of the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco exclusive in that it excludes Community vessels from being authorised to fish in Moroccan fishing zones on the basis of licences issued exclusively by the competent Moroccan authorities for Moroccan owners of fishing quotas?

| 2. | Is Article 6(1) of the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco exclusive in that it excludes Community vessels from being chartered to Moroccan companies on a bareboat charter (on the standard’Barecon 2001’ BIMCO Standard Bareboat Charter form) for fishing in Moroccan fishing zones carried out on the basis of a licence issued exclusively by the competent Moroccan authorities to Moroccan owners of quotas? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 6(1) of the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco exclusive in that it excludes Community vessels from being chartered to Moroccan companies on a bareboat charter (on the standard’Barecon 2001’ BIMCO Standard Bareboat Charter form) for fishing in Moroccan fishing zones carried out on the basis of a licence issued exclusively by the competent Moroccan authorities to Moroccan owners of quotas?

| 3. | Is the answer to question 2 affected in the event that the chartering party also gives competence in the form of administration and crewing of the fishing vessel and technical support to the Moroccan company? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the answer to question 2 affected in the event that the chartering party also gives competence in the form of administration and crewing of the fishing vessel and technical support to the Moroccan company?

| 4. | Does the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco mean that the Kingdom of Morocco is entitled to develop and carry out its own domestic industrial pelagic fishing alongside the agreement below the 29th Parallel (N)? If that is the case, does the agreement entitle the Kingdom of Morocco to charter or grant licences directly to Community fishing vessels for its domestic fishing without there being a need for a permit from the European Community? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco mean that the Kingdom of Morocco is entitled to develop and carry out its own domestic industrial pelagic fishing alongside the agreement below the 29th Parallel (N)? If that is the case, does the agreement entitle the Kingdom of Morocco to charter or grant licences directly to Community fishing vessels for its domestic fishing without there being a need for a permit from the European Community?

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket

(Case C-569/13)

2014/C 15/14

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bricmate AB

Defendant: Tullverket

Questions referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 (1) of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1) invalid on any one of the following grounds:

| 1. | that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of fact, |
| --- | --- |

1.

that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of fact,

| 2. | that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of assessment, |
| --- | --- |

2.

that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of assessment,

| 3. | that the Commission has failed in its obligation to exercise due care and has disregarded Article 3(2) and (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51), |
| --- | --- |

3.

that the Commission has failed in its obligation to exercise due care and has disregarded Article 3(2) and (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51),

| 4. | that the Commission has disregarded its obligations under Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 and has disregarded the company’s rights of the defence, |
| --- | --- |

4.

that the Commission has disregarded its obligations under Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 and has disregarded the company’s rights of the defence,

| 5. | that the Commission, contrary to Article 17 of Regulation No 1225/2009, has failed to take into account the information which the company supplied, and/or |
| --- | --- |

5.

that the Commission, contrary to Article 17 of Regulation No 1225/2009, has failed to take into account the information which the company supplied, and/or

| 6. | that the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons (pursuant to Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)? |
| --- | --- |

6.

that the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons (pursuant to Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)?

---

(1)  OJ L 238, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 343, p. 51.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2013 — Thomas Etzold and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-575/13)

2014/C 15/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Thomas Etzold, Sandra Etzold, Toni Lennard Etzold

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

| 2. | If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

| 3. | Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004?

| 4. | If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/11

---

Appeal brought on 19 November 2013 by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-434/11: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union

(Case C-585/13 P)

2014/C 15/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (represented by: S. Jeffrey, Solicitor, S. Ashley, Solicitor, A. Irvine, Solicitor, H. Hohmann, Rechtsanwalt, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in the detailed respects indicated in this Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in the detailed respects indicated in this Appeal;

| — | Annul the Contested Measures immediately in so far as they apply to EIH; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Contested Measures immediately in so far as they apply to EIH;

| — | Order that the Council pay EIH's costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before this Court on Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Council pay EIH's costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before this Court on Appeal.

and

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court erred in law and reached a conclusion incompatible with the pleadings in concluding that EIH conceded that it carried out the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify its designation:






  — | EIH did not concede that it carried out the transactions contained in the Council’s statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The General Court erred in law and reached a conclusion incompatible with the pleadings in concluding that EIH conceded that it carried out the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify its designation:

—

EIH did not concede that it carried out the transactions contained in the Council’s statement of reasons.

| — | EIH's denial that it had carried out the transactions in the statement of reasons was sufficiently pleaded in its written pleadings and was, therefore, admissible. |
| --- | --- |

—

EIH's denial that it had carried out the transactions in the statement of reasons was sufficiently pleaded in its written pleadings and was, therefore, admissible.

| 2. | The General Court erred in law in finding that the substantive criteria for designation were met:






  — | EIH did not concede that it carried out the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify its designation and the Council failed to provide evidence to the contrary. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law in finding that the substantive criteria for designation were met:

—

EIH did not concede that it carried out the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify its designation and the Council failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

| — | The transactions referred to in EIH's Application did not correspond to the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify designation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The transactions referred to in EIH's Application did not correspond to the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify designation.

| — | EIH's submission that certain transactions were excluded from the scope of the EU sanctions regime (viz., payments into frozen accounts) was sufficiently substantiated and accordingly admissible. |
| --- | --- |

—

EIH's submission that certain transactions were excluded from the scope of the EU sanctions regime (viz., payments into frozen accounts) was sufficiently substantiated and accordingly admissible.

| — | EIH did not fail to provide evidence of authorisations under Articles 8-10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 423/2007 (1) or sufficient evidence of authorisations under Article 21 of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2) for transactions which took place after 2 September 2010. |
| --- | --- |

—

EIH did not fail to provide evidence of authorisations under Articles 8-10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 423/2007 (1) or sufficient evidence of authorisations under Article 21 of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2) for transactions which took place after 2 September 2010.

| — | The so-called Third Way transactions were approved by the competent national authority responsible for enforcing sanctions in Germany and for supervising EIH (the Bundesbank), and the General Court was wrong to hold that the Bundesbank had exceeded its powers, and wrong to hold that EIH should have questioned the authority of the Bundesbank to give the approvals which it gave. |
| --- | --- |

—

The so-called Third Way transactions were approved by the competent national authority responsible for enforcing sanctions in Germany and for supervising EIH (the Bundesbank), and the General Court was wrong to hold that the Bundesbank had exceeded its powers, and wrong to hold that EIH should have questioned the authority of the Bundesbank to give the approvals which it gave.

| 3. | The General Court erred in law in dismissing EIH’s legitimate expectations/legal certainty ground:






  — | The General Court adopted an incorrect characterisation of the facts on the Court file and was wrong to hold that EIH should have foreseen that it would be designated for complying with the binding assurances of the Bundesbank. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erred in law in dismissing EIH’s legitimate expectations/legal certainty ground:

—

The General Court adopted an incorrect characterisation of the facts on the Court file and was wrong to hold that EIH should have foreseen that it would be designated for complying with the binding assurances of the Bundesbank.

| — | The General Court was wrong to hold that EIH could not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations because the Bundesbank had exceeded its powers, because it did not exceed its powers, and even if it had, this would not preclude reliance upon the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court was wrong to hold that EIH could not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations because the Bundesbank had exceeded its powers, because it did not exceed its powers, and even if it had, this would not preclude reliance upon the principle of legitimate expectations.

| — | The General Court erred in law in holding that the relevant rules pursuant to which EIH was designated were unambiguous. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in holding that the relevant rules pursuant to which EIH was designated were unambiguous.

| 4. | The General Court erred in law in holding that EIH could not rely upon Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in contesting its designation and in holding that the sanctions imposed on EIH ensured a preventative effect that could not be achieved by the Bundesbank no longer approving the Third Way or authorising such transactions:






  — | On the hypothesis (which is denied) that EIH acted unlawfully, Article 32(2) precluded the designation of EIH, because EIH acted in accordance with the advice and directions of the Bundesbank in every respect and did not know nor did it have reasonable cause to suspect that it had acted unlawfully. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The General Court erred in law in holding that EIH could not rely upon Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in contesting its designation and in holding that the sanctions imposed on EIH ensured a preventative effect that could not be achieved by the Bundesbank no longer approving the Third Way or authorising such transactions:

—

On the hypothesis (which is denied) that EIH acted unlawfully, Article 32(2) precluded the designation of EIH, because EIH acted in accordance with the advice and directions of the Bundesbank in every respect and did not know nor did it have reasonable cause to suspect that it had acted unlawfully.

| — | The imposition of restrictive measures on EIH was disproportionate because more proportionate measures existed, since if the Council considered that the German regulatory regime required review and perhaps modification, it could have suggested such a review to the German authorities, and the German authorities would have been bound to cooperate under their duty of sincere cooperation, which the General Court wrongly failed to take into account. |
| --- | --- |

—

The imposition of restrictive measures on EIH was disproportionate because more proportionate measures existed, since if the Council considered that the German regulatory regime required review and perhaps modification, it could have suggested such a review to the German authorities, and the German authorities would have been bound to cooperate under their duty of sincere cooperation, which the General Court wrongly failed to take into account.

| — | The General Court also erred in law and reached a conclusion inconsistent with the documents in the file in concluding that the restrictive measures were proportionate because in EIH’s case the relevant transactions only came to light after the event. In the first place, the Bundesbank approved the Third Way before EIH acted in accordance with that approval. In the second place, if a review of its approval of Third Way transactions by the Bundesbank had led to a change in the Bundesbank’s position that would have had a preventative effect for all future transactions. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court also erred in law and reached a conclusion inconsistent with the documents in the file in concluding that the restrictive measures were proportionate because in EIH’s case the relevant transactions only came to light after the event. In the first place, the Bundesbank approved the Third Way before EIH acted in accordance with that approval. In the second place, if a review of its approval of Third Way transactions by the Bundesbank had led to a change in the Bundesbank’s position that would have had a preventative effect for all future transactions.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

OJ L 103, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007

OJ L 281, p. 1

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/12

---

Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2013 in Case T-429/11 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission

(Case C-587/13 P)

2014/C 15/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | declare admissible the action for annulment in Case T-429/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for adjudication on the merits; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the action for annulment in Case T-429/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for adjudication on the merits; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from the proceedings relating to admissibility before both courts. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from the proceedings relating to admissibility before both courts.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court infringed European Union law in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions contesting decisions declaring an aid scheme to be unlawful and incompatible. In particular,






  — | the General Court erred in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary and distorted the facts in applying that concept to the operations carried out by the appellant after 21 December 2007; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The General Court infringed European Union law in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions contesting decisions declaring an aid scheme to be unlawful and incompatible. In particular,

—

the General Court erred in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary and distorted the facts in applying that concept to the operations carried out by the appellant after 21 December 2007;

| — | the General Court also erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of the case-law, in relation to the operations prior to 21 December 2007. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court also erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of the case-law, in relation to the operations prior to 21 December 2007.

| 2. | The General Court made an error of law in interpreting the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court erred in law in holding that the decisions concerning State aid schemes such as the contested decision require implementing measures within the meaning of the new provision of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court made an error of law in interpreting the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court erred in law in holding that the decisions concerning State aid schemes such as the contested decision require implementing measures within the meaning of the new provision of the Treaty.

| 3. | The General Court erred in law in making a ruling which infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The order under appeal adopts a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the appellant from gaining access, in normal conditions and without having to break the law, to the preliminary ruling procedure in order to challenge the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erred in law in making a ruling which infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The order under appeal adopts a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the appellant from gaining access, in normal conditions and without having to break the law, to the preliminary ruling procedure in order to challenge the contested decision.

---

General Court

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Lorenz Shoe Group v OHIM — Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making (Ganeder)

(Case T-374/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark Ganeder - Earlier community word mark Ganter - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 15/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lorenz Shoe Group AG (Taufkirchen an der Pram, Austria) (represented initially by M. Douglas, subsequently by N. Hebeis, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd (Cangshan Fuzhou, China) (represented by: A. Paschke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1), relating to an opposition procedure between shoe fashion group Lorenz AG and Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Lorenz Shoe Group AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Lorenz Shoe Group AG;

| 3. | Orders Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)

(Case T-34/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark HERBA SHINE - Earlier national, Community and international word marks Herbacin - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Statement of reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2014/C 15/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Herbacin cosmetic GmbH (Wutha-Farnroda, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1), relating to an opposition procedure between Herbacin cosmetic GmbH and Laboratoire Garnier et Cie.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1);

| 2. | Orders the OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Vitaminaqua v OHIM — Energy Brands (vitaminaqua)

(Case T-410/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua - Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER - Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 15/20

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Vitaminaqua Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Energy Brands, Inc. (Whitestone, United States of America) (represented by: S. Malynicz, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 997/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands Inc. and Vitaminaqua Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vitaminaqua Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vitaminaqua Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Gaumina v EIGE

(Case T-424/12) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services to support the communication activities of the EIGE - Rejection of a tender - Obligation to state reasons)

2014/C 15/21

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Gaumina UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: S. Aviža and D. Soloveičikas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (represented by: V. Langbakk, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the EIGE of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of the applicant in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13;

| 2. | Orders the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gaumina. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gaumina.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/16

---

Order of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Trabelsi v Council

(Case T-162/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Extension of asset-freezing - Annulment of initial asset-freezing measures - No need to adjudicate)

2014/C 15/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Trabelsi (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2012 L 27, p. 11), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/16

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — Mory and Others v Commission

(Case T-545/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Traditional and express couriers - Decision not to extend the obligation of repayment to the potential purchasers of the beneficiary in composition with creditors - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 15/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mory SA (Pantin, France); Mory Team (Pantin); Superga Invest, formerly Compagnie française superga d’investissement dans le service (CFSIS) (Miraumont, France) (represented by: B. Vatiert and F. Loubières, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 2401 final of 4 April 2012, concerning the takeover of assets of the Sernam group as part of its composition with creditors.

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 French Republic and Calberson to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the French Republic and Calberson to intervene.

| 3. | Mory SA, Mory Team and Superga Invest shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mory SA, Mory Team and Superga Invest shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The French Republic and Calberson, applicants for leave to intervene, shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The French Republic and Calberson, applicants for leave to intervene, shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/17

---

Order of the General Court of 19 November 2013 — 1. garantovaná v Commission

(Case T-42/13) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Fines - Late-payment interest - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 15/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented: initially by M. Powell, Solicitor, G. Forwood, Barrister, M. Staroň and P. Hodál, lawyers, and subsequently by K. Lasok QC, J. Holmes, B. Hartnett, Barristers, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, F. Dintilhac and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 21 December 2012 (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), whereby the Commission asked the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of the fine imposed by Commission decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, together with late-payment interest, or to provide the Commission with a bank guarantee covering that amount.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | 1. garantovaná a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

1. garantovaná a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/17

---

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-229/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 15/25

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/18

---

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-283/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 15/26

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 in Case F-131/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/18

---

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-284/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 15/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 in Case F-17/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/19

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — CSF v Commission

(Case T-337/13 R)

(Interim measures - Public health, safety, consumers and workers protection in order to address the risks resulting from the use of machinery - Measure taken by the Danish authorities prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery without an appropriate protective structure - Commission decision declaring the measure to be justified - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)

2014/C 15/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CSF Srl (Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Italy) (represented by: R. Santoro, S. Armellini and R. Bugaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos, acting as Agent, and by M. Pappalardo, lawyer)

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision 2013/173/EU of 8 April 2013 on a measure taken by Denmark under Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery (OJ 2013 L 101, p. 29).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/19

---

Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

(Case T-539/13)

2014/C 15/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: S. Famiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2013 requesting overall payment in the amount of EUR 212 411,89 in respect of the following projects: Project No 224482, known as MARE (EUR 80 352,07), Project No 216820, known as SENIOR (EUR 53 138,40) and Project No 225010, known as ECRN (EUR 78 231,42); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2013 requesting overall payment in the amount of EUR 212 411,89 in respect of the following projects: Project No 224482, known as MARE (EUR 80 352,07), Project No 216820, known as SENIOR (EUR 53 138,40) and Project No 225010, known as ECRN (EUR 78 231,42); and

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss and non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 3 000 000 or an amount to be determined in the course of the proceedings, as well as the costs of the proceedings, together with interest and monetary indexation of the sum payable. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss and non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 3 000 000 or an amount to be determined in the course of the proceedings, as well as the costs of the proceedings, together with interest and monetary indexation of the sum payable.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings, which participated in three projects approved under the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), contests the Commission’s decision seeking partial restitution of the aid granted.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward eight pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea: the Financial Guide 2010 is inapplicable and lacks retroactive effect in relation to the MARE and SENIOR projects.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that the Financial Guide 2010 did not apply retroactively and that, in consequence, the Financial Guide 2007 should have applied, since it was in force at the time when the contracts were signed. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea: the Financial Guide 2010 is inapplicable and lacks retroactive effect in relation to the MARE and SENIOR projects.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that the Financial Guide 2010 did not apply retroactively and that, in consequence, the Financial Guide 2007 should have applied, since it was in force at the time when the contracts were signed.

| 2. | Second plea: the Commission and the company responsible for the audit failed to respect the applicant’s right to be heard.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission ignored the rules in Annex II to the contract, both in respect of the right to a fair hearing and in relation to respecting the terms for the submission of the reports. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: the Commission and the company responsible for the audit failed to respect the applicant’s right to be heard.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission ignored the rules in Annex II to the contract, both in respect of the right to a fair hearing and in relation to respecting the terms for the submission of the reports.

| 3. | Third plea: the Commission acted in breach of the principle of cooperation and of mutual trust vis-à-vis the applicant, particularly as regards suspected maladministration and injurious behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea: the Commission acted in breach of the principle of cooperation and of mutual trust vis-à-vis the applicant, particularly as regards suspected maladministration and injurious behaviour.

| 4. | Fourth plea: uncertainty of the rules applicable to SMEs for the purposes of the recognition of the project costs.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission does not draw attention to the risks linked to the failure mechanisms of the accounting system which may result in all of a project’s costs being rejected. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea: uncertainty of the rules applicable to SMEs for the purposes of the recognition of the project costs.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission does not draw attention to the risks linked to the failure mechanisms of the accounting system which may result in all of a project’s costs being rejected.

| 5. | Fifth plea: the rules of the International Audit Federation and the European legislation in force governing the audit of SMEs were disapplied. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea: the rules of the International Audit Federation and the European legislation in force governing the audit of SMEs were disapplied.

| 6. | Sixth plea: concerning the permissibility of the project costs and the assessment gaps in the audit. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea: concerning the permissibility of the project costs and the assessment gaps in the audit.

| 7. | Seventh plea: the company responsible for the audit based its conclusion that the costs should be rejected mainly on the exclusive use of timesheets.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that the auditors rejected certain travel expenses because they were not included in the initial planning document (Dow); even though the work plan of the projects is normally set out in detail on an annual basis. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea: the company responsible for the audit based its conclusion that the costs should be rejected mainly on the exclusive use of timesheets.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that the auditors rejected certain travel expenses because they were not included in the initial planning document (Dow); even though the work plan of the projects is normally set out in detail on an annual basis.

| 8. | Eighth plea: (i) the applicant has a legitimate right to be paid for activities correctly carried out and (ii) unjust enrichment of the Commission.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that the results of the MARE, SENIOR and ECNR projects were delivered to the Commission within the time allowed, they results were considered excellent, and were fully accepted by the Commission and approved and signed by the European Commissioner responsible for the sector; the ENCR project was extended for an additional six months in recognition of the work carried out. Rejecting the overall costs of the projects would therefore be at variance with the principle of the right to be remunerated for work carried out, resulting in the Commission being unjustly enriched. |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea: (i) the applicant has a legitimate right to be paid for activities correctly carried out and (ii) unjust enrichment of the Commission.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that the results of the MARE, SENIOR and ECNR projects were delivered to the Commission within the time allowed, they results were considered excellent, and were fully accepted by the Commission and approved and signed by the European Commissioner responsible for the sector; the ENCR project was extended for an additional six months in recognition of the work carried out. Rejecting the overall costs of the projects would therefore be at variance with the principle of the right to be remunerated for work carried out, resulting in the Commission being unjustly enriched.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/20

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council

(Case T-234/08) (1)

2014/C 15/30

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/20

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — France v Commission

(Case T-485/09) (1)

2014/C 15/31

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/21

---

Action brought on 22 October 2013 — ZZ and Others v Court of Auditors

(Case F-105/13)

2014/C 15/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: A. Coolen, J-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 13 December 2013 not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice in order to request it to examine whether Ms S., at that time a Member of the Court of Auditors, no longer fulfilled the requisite conditions or met the obligations arising from her office and not to rule on the complaints of the applicants, not to take any measures which may publicly recognise the harassment that they have sustained, their suffering and to take steps to restore their good names, their credibility and dignity and to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 13 December 2013, acting as appointing authority, not to rule on the complaints of the applicants, not to take any measures which may publicly recognise the harassment that they have sustained, their suffering and to take steps to restore their good names, their credibility and dignity and to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 13 December 2013, acting as appointing authority, not to rule on the complaints of the applicants, not to take any measures which may publicly recognise the harassment that they have sustained, their suffering and to take steps to restore their good names, their credibility and dignity and to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered;

| — | Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

---

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/21

---

Action brought on 4th November 2013 — ZZ v ENISA

(Case F-109/13)

2014/C 15/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: Agence européenne chargée de la sécurité des réseaux et de l’information (ENISA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Decision terminating the Applicant’s contract of employment and as a consequence, to order to the Defendant her reintegration, the payment of her financial benefits since the entering into effect of the contract termination until her reintegration, with the deduction of her possible income for the same period, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points, and, finally, to order the Defendant to compensate the moral prejudice of the Applicant.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 31 January 2013 terminating the Applicant’s contract of employment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 31 January 2013 terminating the Applicant’s contract of employment;

| — | annul the decision of 22 August 2013 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 22 August 2013 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint;

| — | as a consequence, to order to reintegrate the Applicant and to pay her financial benefits since the entering into effect of the contract termination until her reintegration, with the deduction of her possible income for the same period, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, to order to reintegrate the Applicant and to pay her financial benefits since the entering into effect of the contract termination until her reintegration, with the deduction of her possible income for the same period, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points;

| — | to compensate the moral prejudice of the Applicant evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at 10 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

to compensate the moral prejudice of the Applicant evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at 10 000 euros;

| — | order to the Defendant to bear the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order to the Defendant to bear the entire costs.

---