# Official Journal C 171/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.171.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 171 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5615 June 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.171.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 171

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5615 June 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2013/C 171/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 164, 8.6.2013 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2013/C 171/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 164, 8.6.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 171/02 | Case C-480/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 11 — National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes to undertakings in the financial and insurance sector) | 2 |
| 2013/C 171/03 | Case C-64/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Immediate taxation of unrealised gains — Transfer of the place of residence of a company, termination of the activities of a permanent establishment or transfer of the assets of that establishment) | 2 |
| 2013/C 171/04 | Case C-65/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation allowing the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person for purposes of VAT — Consultation of the VAT Committee) | 3 |
| 2013/C 171/05 | Case C-74/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes and restricting the possibility of forming such a group to the financial and insurance sector) | 3 |
| 2013/C 171/06 | Case C-86/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes) | 4 |
| 2013/C 171/07 | Case C-95/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT) | 4 |
| 2013/C 171/08 | Case C-109/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group) | 5 |
| 2013/C 171/09 | Case C-212/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administración del Estado (Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive 2005/60/EC — Article 22(2) — Decision 2000/642/JHA — Requirement to report suspicious financial transactions applicable to credit institutions — Institution operating under the rules on the freedom to provide services — Identification of the national financial information unit responsible for the collection of information — Article 56 TFEU — Obstacle to freedom to provide services — Overriding requirements in the public interest — Proportionality) | 5 |
| 2013/C 171/10 | Case C-331/11: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — Article 14 — Existing landfill — Lack of site conditioning plan — Continued operation) | 6 |
| 2013/C 171/11 | Case C-398/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Thomas Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Approximation of laws — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Scope — Supplementary occupational pension schemes — Defined benefit and balance of costs scheme — Insufficiency of resources — Minimum level of protection — Economic crisis — Balanced economic and social development — Obligations of the Member States concerned in the event of insufficiency of resources — Liability of the Member State in the event of incorrect transposition) | 6 |
| 2013/C 171/12 | Joined Cases C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P: Judgments of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2013 — Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) v Council of the European Union (Appeals — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities — Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Force majeure — Armed conflict) | 7 |
| 2013/C 171/13 | Case C-55/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles — Exemption maintained after the expiry of the transitional period — Infringement) | 7 |
| 2013/C 171/14 | Case C-81/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Asociația ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării (Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2(2)(a), 10(1) and 17 — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation — Concept of facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination — Modified burden of proof — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions — Person presenting himself and being perceived by public opinion as playing a leading role in a professional football club — Public statements ruling out the recruitment of a footballer presented as being homosexual) | 8 |
| 2013/C 171/15 | Case C-89/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Rose Marie Bark v Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation (Joint undertakings — Contracts concluded with members of staff — Applicable rules — Regulation (EC) No 876/2002) | 9 |
| 2013/C 171/16 | Case C-389/12 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2012 by Tibor Szarvas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2012 in Case T-129/12 Tibor Szarvas v Hungary | 9 |
| 2013/C 171/17 | Case C-27/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG | 9 |
| 2013/C 171/18 | Case C-116/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume | 10 |
| 2013/C 171/19 | Case C-117/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG | 10 |
| 2013/C 171/20 | Case C-118/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG | 10 |
| 2013/C 171/21 | Case C-128/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Others | 11 |
| 2013/C 171/22 | Case C-129/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Kamino International Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 11 |
| 2013/C 171/23 | Case C-130/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 12 |
| 2013/C 171/24 | Case C-131/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Schoenimport Italmoda Mariano Previti | 12 |
| 2013/C 171/25 | Case C-133/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Q | 13 |
| 2013/C 171/26 | Case C-135/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Szatmári Malom Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve | 13 |
| 2013/C 171/27 | Case C-137/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern | 14 |
| 2013/C 171/28 | Case C-138/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 March 2013 — Naime Dogan v Federal Republic of Germany | 14 |
| 2013/C 171/29 | Case C-143/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA | 15 |
| 2013/C 171/30 | Case C-146/13: Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union | 15 |
| 2013/C 171/31 | Case C-147/13: Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union | 16 |
| 2013/C 171/32 | Case C-148/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie | 16 |
| 2013/C 171/33 | Case C-149/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie | 17 |
| 2013/C 171/34 | Case C-150/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie | 17 |
| 2013/C 171/35 | Case C-151/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 25 March 2013 — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances | 17 |
| 2013/C 171/36 | Case C-159/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2013 by Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 January 2013 in Case T-474/09 Fercal v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (Jackson Shoes) | 18 |
| 2013/C 171/37 | Case C-163/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 19 |
| 2013/C 171/38 | Case C-164/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 19 |
| 2013/C 171/39 | Case C-169/13: Action brought on 5 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 19 |
| 2013/C 171/40 | Case C-173/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 9 April 2013 — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales | 20 |
| 2013/C 171/41 | Case C-176/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union | 20 |
| 2013/C 171/42 | Case C-199/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2013 in Case T-368/11: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL v European Commission | 21 |
| 2013/C 171/43 | Case C-200/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10: Bank Saderat Iran v Council of the European Union | 22 |
| 2013/C 171/44 | Case C-209/13: Action brought on 18 April 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union | 22 |
| 2013/C 171/45 | Case C-211/13: Action brought on 19 April 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany | 23 |
| 2013/C 171/46 | Case C-215/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union | 23 |
| 2013/C 171/47 | Case C-216/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-118/10: Acron OAO v Council of the European Union | 24 |
| 2013/C 171/48 | Case C-248/13: Action brought on 6 May 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union | 25 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 171/49 | Case T-80/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — KIN (Wristwatch case) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design or model representing a wristwatch case — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Overall impression not different — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Related to a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Community design court — Article 91 of Regulation No 6/2002) | 26 |
| 2013/C 171/50 | Case T-288/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission (Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Maintenance of the HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations in the Joseph-Bech building in Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Equal treatment — Transparency — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons) | 26 |
| 2013/C 171/51 | Case T-304/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Alumina v Council (Dumping — Imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Normal value — Representativeness of domestic sales — Profit margin — Ordinary course of trade) | 26 |
| 2013/C 171/52 | Case T-640/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark RELY-ABLE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Ground included for sake of completeness) | 27 |
| 2013/C 171/53 | Case T-61/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — ABC-One v OHMI (SLIM BELLY) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SLIM BELLY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2013/C 171/54 | Case T-183/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE) | 28 |
| 2013/C 171/55 | Case T-184/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE) | 28 |
| 2013/C 171/56 | Case T-187/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Jannatian v Council | 29 |
| 2013/C 171/57 | Case T-192/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Transworld Oil Computer Centrum and Others v Eurojust | 30 |
| 2013/C 171/58 | Case T-195/13: Action brought on 3 April 2013 — dm-drogerie markt/OHIM — V-Contact (CAMEA) | 31 |
| 2013/C 171/59 | Case T-196/13: Action brought on 5 April 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp/OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana) | 31 |
| 2013/C 171/60 | Case T-198/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX) | 32 |
| 2013/C 171/61 | Case T-200/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV, De Luca v Commission | 32 |
| 2013/C 171/62 | Case T-202/13: Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Group’Hygiène v Commission | 33 |
| 2013/C 171/63 | Case T-206/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE) | 34 |
| 2013/C 171/64 | Case T-207/13: Action brought on 10 April 2013 — 1872 Holdings/OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA) | 34 |
| 2013/C 171/65 | Case T-214/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission | 35 |
| 2013/C 171/66 | Case T-220/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission | 35 |
| 2013/C 171/67 | Case T-223/13: Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte v Commission | 35 |
| 2013/C 171/68 | Case T-224/13: Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Melitta France v Commission | 36 |
| 2013/C 171/69 | Case T-226/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12, Marcuccio v Commission | 36 |
| 2013/C 171/70 | Case T-229/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11, Marcuccio v Commission | 37 |
| 2013/C 171/71 | Case T-231/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Wepa Lille v Commission | 37 |
| 2013/C 171/72 | Case T-232/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission | 37 |
| 2013/C 171/73 | Case T-233/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Hartmann v Commission | 38 |
| 2013/C 171/74 | Case T-234/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Lucart France v Commission | 38 |
| 2013/C 171/75 | Case T-235/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Gopack v Commission | 38 |
| 2013/C 171/76 | Case T-236/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — CMC France v Commission | 38 |
| 2013/C 171/77 | Case T-237/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Tissue France v Commission | 39 |
| 2013/C 171/78 | Case T-238/13: Action brought on 24 April 2013 — Delipapier v Commission | 39 |
| 2013/C 171/79 | Case T-243/13: Action brought on 30 April 2013 — ICT v Commission | 39 |
| 2013/C 171/80 | Case T-244/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission | 40 |
| 2013/C 171/81 | Case T-194/07: Order of the General Court of 26 April 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission | 40 |
| 2013/C 171/82 | Case T-221/07: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Hungary v Commission | 40 |
| 2013/C 171/83 | Case T-143/13: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission | 40 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2013/C 171/84 | Case F-73/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — CB v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/181/10 — Non-admission to the assessment tests) | 41 |
| 2013/C 171/85 | Case F-96/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — Demeneix v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition — Not included on the reserve list — Criterion related to professional experience — Scope of discretion) | 41 |
| 2013/C 171/86 | Case F-126/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9.4.2013 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission | 41 |
| 2013/C 171/87 | Case F-6/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18.4.2013 — Rosenbaum v Commission | 41 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 171/02

Case C-480/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 11 — National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes to undertakings in the financial and insurance sector)

2

2013/C 171/03

Case C-64/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Immediate taxation of unrealised gains — Transfer of the place of residence of a company, termination of the activities of a permanent establishment or transfer of the assets of that establishment)

2

2013/C 171/04

Case C-65/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation allowing the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person for purposes of VAT — Consultation of the VAT Committee)

3

2013/C 171/05

Case C-74/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes and restricting the possibility of forming such a group to the financial and insurance sector)

3

2013/C 171/06

Case C-86/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)

4

2013/C 171/07

Case C-95/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT)

4

2013/C 171/08

Case C-109/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group)

5

2013/C 171/09

Case C-212/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administración del Estado (Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive 2005/60/EC — Article 22(2) — Decision 2000/642/JHA — Requirement to report suspicious financial transactions applicable to credit institutions — Institution operating under the rules on the freedom to provide services — Identification of the national financial information unit responsible for the collection of information — Article 56 TFEU — Obstacle to freedom to provide services — Overriding requirements in the public interest — Proportionality)

5

2013/C 171/10

Case C-331/11: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — Article 14 — Existing landfill — Lack of site conditioning plan — Continued operation)

6

2013/C 171/11

Case C-398/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Thomas Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Approximation of laws — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Scope — Supplementary occupational pension schemes — Defined benefit and balance of costs scheme — Insufficiency of resources — Minimum level of protection — Economic crisis — Balanced economic and social development — Obligations of the Member States concerned in the event of insufficiency of resources — Liability of the Member State in the event of incorrect transposition)

6

2013/C 171/12

Joined Cases C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P: Judgments of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2013 — Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) v Council of the European Union (Appeals — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities — Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Force majeure — Armed conflict)

7

2013/C 171/13

Case C-55/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles — Exemption maintained after the expiry of the transitional period — Infringement)

7

2013/C 171/14

Case C-81/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Asociația ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării (Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2(2)(a), 10(1) and 17 — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation — Concept of facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination — Modified burden of proof — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions — Person presenting himself and being perceived by public opinion as playing a leading role in a professional football club — Public statements ruling out the recruitment of a footballer presented as being homosexual)

8

2013/C 171/15

Case C-89/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Rose Marie Bark v Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation (Joint undertakings — Contracts concluded with members of staff — Applicable rules — Regulation (EC) No 876/2002)

9

2013/C 171/16

Case C-389/12 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2012 by Tibor Szarvas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2012 in Case T-129/12 Tibor Szarvas v Hungary

9

2013/C 171/17

Case C-27/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG

9

2013/C 171/18

Case C-116/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume

10

2013/C 171/19

Case C-117/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG

10

2013/C 171/20

Case C-118/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

10

2013/C 171/21

Case C-128/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Others

11

2013/C 171/22

Case C-129/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Kamino International Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

11

2013/C 171/23

Case C-130/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

12

2013/C 171/24

Case C-131/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Schoenimport Italmoda Mariano Previti

12

2013/C 171/25

Case C-133/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Q

13

2013/C 171/26

Case C-135/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Szatmári Malom Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

13

2013/C 171/27

Case C-137/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

14

2013/C 171/28

Case C-138/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 March 2013 — Naime Dogan v Federal Republic of Germany

14

2013/C 171/29

Case C-143/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA

15

2013/C 171/30

Case C-146/13: Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

15

2013/C 171/31

Case C-147/13: Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

16

2013/C 171/32

Case C-148/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

16

2013/C 171/33

Case C-149/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

17

2013/C 171/34

Case C-150/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

17

2013/C 171/35

Case C-151/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 25 March 2013 — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

17

2013/C 171/36

Case C-159/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2013 by Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 January 2013 in Case T-474/09 Fercal v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (Jackson Shoes)

18

2013/C 171/37

Case C-163/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

19

2013/C 171/38

Case C-164/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

19

2013/C 171/39

Case C-169/13: Action brought on 5 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

19

2013/C 171/40

Case C-173/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 9 April 2013 — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales

20

2013/C 171/41

Case C-176/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union

20

2013/C 171/42

Case C-199/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2013 in Case T-368/11: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL v European Commission

21

2013/C 171/43

Case C-200/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10: Bank Saderat Iran v Council of the European Union

22

2013/C 171/44

Case C-209/13: Action brought on 18 April 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

22

2013/C 171/45

Case C-211/13: Action brought on 19 April 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

23

2013/C 171/46

Case C-215/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union

23

2013/C 171/47

Case C-216/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-118/10: Acron OAO v Council of the European Union

24

2013/C 171/48

Case C-248/13: Action brought on 6 May 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

25

General Court

2013/C 171/49

Case T-80/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — KIN (Wristwatch case) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design or model representing a wristwatch case — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Overall impression not different — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Related to a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Community design court — Article 91 of Regulation No 6/2002)

26

2013/C 171/50

Case T-288/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission (Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Maintenance of the HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations in the Joseph-Bech building in Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Equal treatment — Transparency — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons)

26

2013/C 171/51

Case T-304/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Alumina v Council (Dumping — Imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Normal value — Representativeness of domestic sales — Profit margin — Ordinary course of trade)

26

2013/C 171/52

Case T-640/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark RELY-ABLE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Ground included for sake of completeness)

27

2013/C 171/53

Case T-61/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — ABC-One v OHMI (SLIM BELLY) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SLIM BELLY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

27

2013/C 171/54

Case T-183/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

28

2013/C 171/55

Case T-184/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

28

2013/C 171/56

Case T-187/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Jannatian v Council

29

2013/C 171/57

Case T-192/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Transworld Oil Computer Centrum and Others v Eurojust

30

2013/C 171/58

Case T-195/13: Action brought on 3 April 2013 — dm-drogerie markt/OHIM — V-Contact (CAMEA)

31

2013/C 171/59

Case T-196/13: Action brought on 5 April 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp/OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana)

31

2013/C 171/60

Case T-198/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)

32

2013/C 171/61

Case T-200/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV, De Luca v Commission

32

2013/C 171/62

Case T-202/13: Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Group’Hygiène v Commission

33

2013/C 171/63

Case T-206/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)

34

2013/C 171/64

Case T-207/13: Action brought on 10 April 2013 — 1872 Holdings/OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA)

34

2013/C 171/65

Case T-214/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission

35

2013/C 171/66

Case T-220/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

35

2013/C 171/67

Case T-223/13: Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte v Commission

35

2013/C 171/68

Case T-224/13: Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Melitta France v Commission

36

2013/C 171/69

Case T-226/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12, Marcuccio v Commission

36

2013/C 171/70

Case T-229/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11, Marcuccio v Commission

37

2013/C 171/71

Case T-231/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Wepa Lille v Commission

37

2013/C 171/72

Case T-232/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission

37

2013/C 171/73

Case T-233/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Hartmann v Commission

38

2013/C 171/74

Case T-234/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Lucart France v Commission

38

2013/C 171/75

Case T-235/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Gopack v Commission

38

2013/C 171/76

Case T-236/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — CMC France v Commission

38

2013/C 171/77

Case T-237/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Tissue France v Commission

39

2013/C 171/78

Case T-238/13: Action brought on 24 April 2013 — Delipapier v Commission

39

2013/C 171/79

Case T-243/13: Action brought on 30 April 2013 — ICT v Commission

39

2013/C 171/80

Case T-244/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission

40

2013/C 171/81

Case T-194/07: Order of the General Court of 26 April 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission

40

2013/C 171/82

Case T-221/07: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Hungary v Commission

40

2013/C 171/83

Case T-143/13: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission

40

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2013/C 171/84

Case F-73/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — CB v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/181/10 — Non-admission to the assessment tests)

41

2013/C 171/85

Case F-96/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — Demeneix v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition — Not included on the reserve list — Criterion related to professional experience — Scope of discretion)

41

2013/C 171/86

Case F-126/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9.4.2013 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission

41

2013/C 171/87

Case F-6/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18.4.2013 — Rosenbaum v Commission

41

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/1

---

2013/C 171/01

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

OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

Past publications

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013

OJ C 141, 18.5.2013

OJ C 129, 4.5.2013

OJ C 123, 27.4.2013

OJ C 114, 20.4.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-480/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 11 - National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes to undertakings in the financial and insurance sector)

2013/C 171/02

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and by G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation limiting application of the rules on VAT groups only to undertakings carrying out activities in the financial sector

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Ireland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-64/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Immediate taxation of unrealised gains - Transfer of the place of residence of a company, termination of the activities of a permanent establishment or transfer of the assets of that establishment)

2013/C 171/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 EEA — Tax provisions pursuant to which companies ceasing to have their tax residence in Spain or transferring their assets to another State must immediately pay an exit tax

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting Article 17(1)(a) and (c) of the re-cast text of the Law on corporate taxation, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2004 (Real Decreto Legislativo 4/2004 por el que se aprueba el Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades), pursuant to which, in the case of a transfer to another Member State of the place of residence of a company established in Spain and of the assets of a permanent establishment situated in Spain, unrealised gains form part of the tax base for the financial year, whereas those assets have no immediate consequences in terms of tax if those transactions tax place in Spanish territory, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting Article 17(1)(a) and (c) of the re-cast text of the Law on corporate taxation, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2004 (Real Decreto Legislativo 4/2004 por el que se aprueba el Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades), pursuant to which, in the case of a transfer to another Member State of the place of residence of a company established in Spain and of the assets of a permanent establishment situated in Spain, unrealised gains form part of the tax base for the financial year, whereas those assets have no immediate consequences in terms of tax if those transactions tax place in Spanish territory, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs;

| 4. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-65/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation allowing the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person for purposes of VAT - Consultation of the VAT Committee)

2013/C 171/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis, R. Lyal and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan acting as Agent, and by G. Clohessy, SC and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, and M. Hall, QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group — Failure to notify the VAT Committee of amendments to the implementation of the VAT group scheme

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-74/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes and restricting the possibility of forming such a group to the financial and insurance sector)

2013/C 171/05

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, J. Heliskoski and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent); Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL); Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, and M. Hall, QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of Value Added Tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation permitting non-taxable persons to be included in a VAT group and restricting the VAT group system to providers of financial services and insurance services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-86/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)

2013/C 171/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Hathaway, acting as Agent, and M. Hall QC)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, and subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-95/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT)

2013/C 171/07

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, assisted by H. Peytz, lawyer)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy SC and N. Travers BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Hall QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

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

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-109/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group)

2013/C 171/08

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, D. Triantafyllou, K. Walkerová and P. Němečková, Agents)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, then by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy, SC, and by N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, assisted by M. Hall, QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group

Operative part

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administración del Estado

(Case C-212/11) (1)

(Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing - Directive 2005/60/EC - Article 22(2) - Decision 2000/642/JHA - Requirement to report suspicious financial transactions applicable to credit institutions - Institution operating under the rules on the freedom to provide services - Identification of the national financial information unit responsible for the collection of information - Article 56 TFEU - Obstacle to freedom to provide services - Overriding requirements in the public interest - Proportionality)

2013/C 171/09

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 22(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p.15) — National legislation under which it is a direct and mandatory requirement that the information which must be provided by credit institutions operating in its territory without a permanent establishment be forwarded by them directly to the competent national authorities of that State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires credit institutions to communicate the information required for the purpose of combating money laundering and terrorist financing directly to the FIU of that Member State where the institutions carry out their activities in that State under the freedom to provide services, to the extent that that legislation does not compromise the effectiveness of that directive and of Council Decision 2000/642/JHA of 17 October 2000 concerning arrangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units of the Member States in respect of exchanging information;

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation if the latter is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, secures the attainment of the aim in view and does not go beyond that which is necessary in order to attain it, and is applied in a non-discriminatory manner, which it is for the national court to ascertain taking account of the following considerations:

| — | such legislation is appropriate to attain the aim of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing if it enables the Member State concerned effectively to supervise and suspend suspicious financial transactions concluded by credit institutions offering their services in the national territory and, if appropriate, to pursue and punish those responsible; |
| --- | --- |

—

such legislation is appropriate to attain the aim of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing if it enables the Member State concerned effectively to supervise and suspend suspicious financial transactions concluded by credit institutions offering their services in the national territory and, if appropriate, to pursue and punish those responsible;

| — | the obligation imposed by that legislation on credit institutions carrying out their activities under the freedom to provide services may constitute a proportionate measure in pursuit of that aim in the absence, at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, of any effective mechanism guaranteeing full and complete cooperation between financial intelligence units. |
| --- | --- |

—

the obligation imposed by that legislation on credit institutions carrying out their activities under the freedom to provide services may constitute a proportionate measure in pursuit of that aim in the absence, at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, of any effective mechanism guaranteeing full and complete cooperation between financial intelligence units.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-331/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfill of waste - Article 14 - Existing landfill - Lack of site conditioning plan - Continued operation)

2013/C 171/10

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Operation of the Žilina-Považský Chlmec waste site without a site conditioning plan

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising the operation of the Žilina-Považský Chlmec waste site without a site conditioning plan and in the absence of a final decision on the continued operation on the basis of an approved site conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 14(a) to (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising the operation of the Žilina-Považský Chlmec waste site without a site conditioning plan and in the absence of a final decision on the continued operation on the basis of an approved site conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 14(a) to (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

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

2.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Thomas Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs and Others

(Case C-398/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Approximation of laws - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Scope - Supplementary occupational pension schemes - Defined benefit and balance of costs scheme - Insufficiency of resources - Minimum level of protection - Economic crisis - Balanced economic and social development - Obligations of the Member States concerned in the event of insufficiency of resources - Liability of the Member State in the event of incorrect transposition)

2013/C 171/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Plaintiffs: Thomas Hogan, John Burns, John Dooley, Alfred Ryan, Michael Cunningham, Michael Dooley, Denis Hayes, Marion Walsh, Joan Power, Walter Walsh

Defendants: Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland, Attorney General

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court (Ireland) — Interpretation of Articles 1(1) and (8) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36) — Supplementary occupational pension schemes — Insufficiency of resources of those schemes — National legislation which does not provide a legal basis for employees to obtain compensation from their employer in consequence of the insolvency of the undertaking — Obligation of the Member State concerned to adopt the necessary measures to protect the interest of employees — Factors to be taken into account in the national court’s assessment of compliance with that obligation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the entitlement of former employees to old-age benefits under a supplementary pension scheme set up by their employer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the entitlement of former employees to old-age benefits under a supplementary pension scheme set up by their employer.

| 2. | Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that State pension benefits may not be taken into account in assessing whether a Member State has complied with the obligation laid down in that article. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that State pension benefits may not be taken into account in assessing whether a Member State has complied with the obligation laid down in that article.

| 3. | Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for that article to apply, it is sufficient that the pension scheme is underfunded as of the date of the employer’s insolvency and that, on account of his insolvency, the employer does not have the resources to contribute sufficient money to the pension scheme to enable the pension benefits owed to the beneficiaries of that scheme to be satisfied in full. It is not necessary for those beneficiaries to prove that there are other factors giving rise to the loss of their entitlement to old-age benefits. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for that article to apply, it is sufficient that the pension scheme is underfunded as of the date of the employer’s insolvency and that, on account of his insolvency, the employer does not have the resources to contribute sufficient money to the pension scheme to enable the pension benefits owed to the beneficiaries of that scheme to be satisfied in full. It is not necessary for those beneficiaries to prove that there are other factors giving rise to the loss of their entitlement to old-age benefits.

| 4. | Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the measures adopted by Ireland following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 January 2007 in Case C 278/05 Robins and Others do not fulfil the obligations imposed by that directive and that the economic situation of the Member State concerned does not constitute an exceptional situation capable of justifying a lower level of protection of the interests of employees as regards their entitlement to old-age benefits under a supplementary occupational pension scheme. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the measures adopted by Ireland following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 January 2007 in Case C 278/05 Robins and Others do not fulfil the obligations imposed by that directive and that the economic situation of the Member State concerned does not constitute an exceptional situation capable of justifying a lower level of protection of the interests of employees as regards their entitlement to old-age benefits under a supplementary occupational pension scheme.

| 5. | Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the measures taken by Ireland subsequent to Robins and Others have not brought about the result that the plaintiffs would receive in excess of 49 % of the value of their accrued old-age pension benefits under their occupational pension scheme is in itself a serious breach of that Member State’s obligations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the measures taken by Ireland subsequent to Robins and Others have not brought about the result that the plaintiffs would receive in excess of 49 % of the value of their accrued old-age pension benefits under their occupational pension scheme is in itself a serious breach of that Member State’s obligations.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

---

Judgments of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2013 — Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Force majeure - Armed conflict)

2013/C 171/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, lawyer)

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

Re:

Appeals against the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2011 in Cases T-348/11 Gbagbo v Council, T-349/11 Koné v Council, T-350/11 Boni-Claverie v Council, T-351/11 Djédjé v Council and T-352/11 N’Guessan v Council by which it dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellants’ actions for the annulment of, first, Council Decisions 2011/17/CFSP of 11 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 31), 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and, secondly, Council Regulations (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1) and (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), amending Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — No individual notification of the decision — Case of force majeure

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Mr Laurent Gbagbo, Mr Katinan Justin Koné, Ms Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie, Mr Alcide Djédjé and Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Laurent Gbagbo, Mr Katinan Justin Koné, Ms Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie, Mr Alcide Djédjé and Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-55/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles - Exemption maintained after the expiry of the transitional period - Infringement)

2013/C 171/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent)

Re:

Breach of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003, on restructuring the Community framework of taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles — Exemption maintained after the expiry of the transitional period

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by continuing to grant, after the expiry on 31 December 2006 of the transitional period referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 23 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework of taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, and Annex II to that directive, an exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by continuing to grant, after the expiry on 31 December 2006 of the transitional period referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 23 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework of taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, and Annex II to that directive, an exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of the directive;

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

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Asociația ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

(Case C-81/12) (1)

(Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(2)(a), 10(1) and 17 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation - Concept of ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination’ - Modified burden of proof - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions - Person presenting himself and being perceived by public opinion as playing a leading role in a professional football club - Public statements ruling out the recruitment of a footballer presented as being homosexual)

2013/C 171/14

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociația ACCEPT

Defendant: Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel București — Interpretation of Articles 2(2)(a), 10(1) and 17 of 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) — Criteria used in the selection of football club staff discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation — Applicability of the directive when statements are made in the press, in the absence of an actual recruitment procedure — Facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination — Burden of proof — Body of penalties applicable when those provisions are infringed — Whether permissible for national legislation to preclude the imposition of a fine for infringement once the limitation period of six months has expired — Duty to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 2(2) and 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that facts such as those from which the dispute in the main proceedings are capable of amounting to ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been ... discrimination’ as regards a professional football club, even though the statements concerned come from a person presenting himself and being perceived in the media and among the general public as playing a leading role in that club without, however, necessarily having legal capacity to bind it or to represent it in recruitment matters; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 2(2) and 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that facts such as those from which the dispute in the main proceedings are capable of amounting to ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been ... discrimination’ as regards a professional football club, even though the statements concerned come from a person presenting himself and being perceived in the media and among the general public as playing a leading role in that club without, however, necessarily having legal capacity to bind it or to represent it in recruitment matters;

| 2. | Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that, if facts such as those from which the dispute in the main proceedings arises were considered to be ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’ based on sexual orientation during the recruitment of players by a professional football club, the modified burden of proof laid down in Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78 would not require evidence impossible to adduce without interfering with the right to privacy; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that, if facts such as those from which the dispute in the main proceedings arises were considered to be ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’ based on sexual orientation during the recruitment of players by a professional football club, the modified burden of proof laid down in Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78 would not require evidence impossible to adduce without interfering with the right to privacy;

| 3. | Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national rules by virtue of which, where there is a finding of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation within the meaning of that directive, it is possible only to impose a warning such as that at issue in the main proceedings where such a finding is made after the expiry of a limitation period of six months from the date on which the facts occurred where, under those rules, such discrimination is not sanctioned under substantive and procedural conditions that render the sanction effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is for the national court to ascertain whether such is the case regarding the rules at issue in the main proceedings and, if necessary, to interpret the national law as far as possible in light of the wording and the purpose of that directive in order to achieve the result envisaged by it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national rules by virtue of which, where there is a finding of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation within the meaning of that directive, it is possible only to impose a warning such as that at issue in the main proceedings where such a finding is made after the expiry of a limitation period of six months from the date on which the facts occurred where, under those rules, such discrimination is not sanctioned under substantive and procedural conditions that render the sanction effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is for the national court to ascertain whether such is the case regarding the rules at issue in the main proceedings and, if necessary, to interpret the national law as far as possible in light of the wording and the purpose of that directive in order to achieve the result envisaged by it.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Rose Marie Bark v Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

(Case C-89/12) (1)

(Joint undertakings - Contracts concluded with members of staff - Applicable rules - Regulation (EC) No 876/2002)

2013/C 171/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rose Marie Bark

Defendant: Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 11(2), of the Statutes of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, set out in the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking (OJ 2002 L 138, p. 1) — Fixed-term contracts concluded with members of staff — Contracts based on ‘employment of other staff of the European Communities’ — Mandatory provisions of the Staff Regulations on the conditions for compensation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2) of the Statutes of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, set out in the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1943/2006 of 12 December 2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and, in particular, the salary rates defined therein, do not apply to members of staff of Galileo who have fixed-term contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/9

---

Appeal brought on 20 August 2012 by Tibor Szarvas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2012 in Case T-129/12 Tibor Szarvas v Hungary

(Case C-389/12 P)

2013/C 171/16

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Tibor Szarvas (represented by: M. Katona, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: Hungary

By order of 7 March 2013 the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to bear his own costs.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG

(Case C-27/13)

2013/C 171/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and Respondent in the Appeal: Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG

Defendant and Appellant in the Appeal: Flughafen Lübeck GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Must a national court, asked to adjudicate a claim for recovery of benefits and for discontinuation of future benefits, regard these benefits as measures which under the third sentence of Art. 108(3) TFEU may not be implemented before a final decision by the European Commission (‘the Commission’), if the Commission has decided, unchallenged, to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure under Art. 108(2) TFEU in relation to these benefits, and has stated in the grounds of this decision, in essence, inter alia that these benefits probably constitute State aid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must a national court, asked to adjudicate a claim for recovery of benefits and for discontinuation of future benefits, regard these benefits as measures which under the third sentence of Art. 108(3) TFEU may not be implemented before a final decision by the European Commission (‘the Commission’), if the Commission has decided, unchallenged, to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure under Art. 108(2) TFEU in relation to these benefits, and has stated in the grounds of this decision, in essence, inter alia that these benefits probably constitute State aid?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is yes:
  Does the same apply if the Commission has moreover stated in the grounds of its decision, in essence, that it is not in a position to determine whether the provider of the benefits was acting as a normal private investor in a market economy [Or. 2] when it undertook to make the benefits available? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is yes:

Does the same apply if the Commission has moreover stated in the grounds of its decision, in essence, that it is not in a position to determine whether the provider of the benefits was acting as a normal private investor in a market economy [Or. 2] when it undertook to make the benefits available?

| 3. | If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is no:
  May the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is no:

May the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure?

| 4. | If the answer to question 3 is yes:
  Must the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to question 3 is yes:

Must the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure?

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume

(Case C-116/13)

2013/C 171/18

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco de Valencia SA

Defendant: Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the Spanish mortgage enforcement process comply with Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) in so far as it does not accept, as a precondition for deciding whether or not to order enforcement, judicial review of the court’s own motion of a clause for acceleration of the loan, at the request of the bank alone, which is considered unfair in itself and in the specific way it is applied to this case, that clause being indispensable for making that privileged means of enforcement available to a professional lender? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Spanish mortgage enforcement process comply with Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) in so far as it does not accept, as a precondition for deciding whether or not to order enforcement, judicial review of the court’s own motion of a clause for acceleration of the loan, at the request of the bank alone, which is considered unfair in itself and in the specific way it is applied to this case, that clause being indispensable for making that privileged means of enforcement available to a professional lender?

| 2. | Again having regard to Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, what must be the scope of the court’s intervention regarding that clause when it has to direct that enforcement is to take place in the mortgage enforcement process? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Again having regard to Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, what must be the scope of the court’s intervention regarding that clause when it has to direct that enforcement is to take place in the mortgage enforcement process?

| 3. | Can a contractual clause which enables the lending financial institution unilaterally to cancel the loan agreement on totally objective grounds, some of which have no connection with the loan agreement itself and, in the circumstances at issue in these proceedings, because of the failure to pay four monthly mortgage instalments, be regarded as unfair, both in itself and in the manner in which it is specifically applied to this case, in the light of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13/EEC and points 1(e) and (g) and 2(a) of the annex thereto? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a contractual clause which enables the lending financial institution unilaterally to cancel the loan agreement on totally objective grounds, some of which have no connection with the loan agreement itself and, in the circumstances at issue in these proceedings, because of the failure to pay four monthly mortgage instalments, be regarded as unfair, both in itself and in the manner in which it is specifically applied to this case, in the light of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13/EEC and points 1(e) and (g) and 2(a) of the annex thereto?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG

(Case C-117/13)

2013/C 171/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Technische Universität Darmstadt

Defendant: Eugen Ulmer KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is use subject to purchase or licensing terms within the meaning of Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) where the rightholder offers to conclude with the establishments referred to therein licensing agreements for the use of works on appropriate terms? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is use subject to purchase or licensing terms within the meaning of Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) where the rightholder offers to conclude with the establishments referred to therein licensing agreements for the use of works on appropriate terms?

| 2. | Does Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC entitle the Member States to confer on the establishments the right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if that is necessary in order to make those works available on terminals? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC entitle the Member States to confer on the establishments the right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if that is necessary in order to make those works available on terminals?

| 3. | May the rights which the Member States lay down pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so far as to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or store on a USB stick the works made available there? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May the rights which the Member States lay down pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so far as to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or store on a USB stick the works made available there?

---

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

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

(Case C-118/13)

2013/C 171/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gülay Bollacke

Defendant: K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice according to which the entitlement to a minimum period of paid annual leave is lost in its entirety on the death of the worker, namely not only the entitlement to release from the obligation to work, which can no longer be implemented, but also the entitlement to payment of remuneration in respect of annual leave? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice according to which the entitlement to a minimum period of paid annual leave is lost in its entirety on the death of the worker, namely not only the entitlement to release from the obligation to work, which can no longer be implemented, but also the entitlement to payment of remuneration in respect of annual leave?

| 2. | Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EG to be interpreted as meaning that the entitlement to an allowance in lieu of a minimum period of paid annual leave on termination of the employment relationship attaches to the person of the worker in such a way that that entitlement accrues only to him, in order to enable him to realise at a later date the purposes of rest and leisure associated with the granting of paid annual leave? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EG to be interpreted as meaning that the entitlement to an allowance in lieu of a minimum period of paid annual leave on termination of the employment relationship attaches to the person of the worker in such a way that that entitlement accrues only to him, in order to enable him to realise at a later date the purposes of rest and leisure associated with the granting of paid annual leave?

| 3. | Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the protection of the safety and health of workers, the employer is obliged, when organising working time, actually to grant the worker leave by the end of the calendar year or, at the latest, by the end of a carry over period applicable to the employment relationship, regardless of whether or not the worker has submitted an application for leave? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the protection of the safety and health of workers, the employer is obliged, when organising working time, actually to grant the worker leave by the end of the calendar year or, at the latest, by the end of a carry over period applicable to the employment relationship, regardless of whether or not the worker has submitted an application for leave?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Others

(Case C-128/13)

2013/C 171/21

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

Defendants: IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL

Questions referred

The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to give a preliminary ruling, in the light of the arguments of the parties, on the interpretation to be given to Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 (1) and Article 19(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985, (2) in relation to the ‘release’ of the security provided in the context of Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 5).

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Kamino International Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-129/13)

2013/C 171/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Kamino International Logistics BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts?

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






  (a) | must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

(a)

must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts?

| (b) | are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account whether it is likely that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account whether it is likely that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome?

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-130/13)

2013/C 171/23

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts?

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






  (a) | must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

(a)

must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts?

| (b) | are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account the fact that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account the fact that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome?

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti

(Case C-131/13)

2013/C 171/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the national authorities and courts, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse to apply the exemption pertaining to an intra-Community supply, the right to the deduction of VAT in respect of the purchase of goods which, after the purchase, were dispatched to another Member State, or the refund of VAT pursuant to the application of the second sentence of Article 28b(A)(2) of the Sixth Directive, (1) when, based on objective data, it has been established that there has been VAT evasion in respect of the goods concerned, and that the taxable person knew, or should have known, that it had participated therein, if national law does not make provision for the refusal of the exemption, the deduction or the refund under those circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the national authorities and courts, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse to apply the exemption pertaining to an intra-Community supply, the right to the deduction of VAT in respect of the purchase of goods which, after the purchase, were dispatched to another Member State, or the refund of VAT pursuant to the application of the second sentence of Article 28b(A)(2) of the Sixth Directive, (1) when, based on objective data, it has been established that there has been VAT evasion in respect of the goods concerned, and that the taxable person knew, or should have known, that it had participated therein, if national law does not make provision for the refusal of the exemption, the deduction or the refund under those circumstances?

| 2. | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, should the aforementioned exemption, deduction or refund also be refused if the VAT evasion occurred in another Member State (other than the Member State from which the goods were dispatched) and the taxable person was or should have been aware of the VAT evasion, while the taxable person in the Member State from which the goods were dispatched has met all the (formal) conditions which national statutory provisions impose on the exemption, the deduction or the refund, and it has always provided the tax authorities in that Member State with all the required information in respect of the goods, the dispatch and the persons acquiring the goods in the Member State of arrival of the goods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, should the aforementioned exemption, deduction or refund also be refused if the VAT evasion occurred in another Member State (other than the Member State from which the goods were dispatched) and the taxable person was or should have been aware of the VAT evasion, while the taxable person in the Member State from which the goods were dispatched has met all the (formal) conditions which national statutory provisions impose on the exemption, the deduction or the refund, and it has always provided the tax authorities in that Member State with all the required information in respect of the goods, the dispatch and the persons acquiring the goods in the Member State of arrival of the goods?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative, what should be understood by ‘subject to’ in (the final part of) the first sentence of Article 28b(A)(2): the declaration in the statutorily prescribed VAT returns of the VAT payable in respect of intra-Community acquisitions in the Member State of arrival, or — in the absence of such a declaration — also the measures adopted by the tax authorities of the Member State of arrival to regularise the absence of that declaration? When answering that question, is it significant whether the transaction concerned forms part of a chain of transactions aimed at VAT evasion in the country of arrival and the taxable person was aware or should have been aware of it? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, what should be understood by ‘subject to’ in (the final part of) the first sentence of Article 28b(A)(2): the declaration in the statutorily prescribed VAT returns of the VAT payable in respect of intra-Community acquisitions in the Member State of arrival, or — in the absence of such a declaration — also the measures adopted by the tax authorities of the Member State of arrival to regularise the absence of that declaration? When answering that question, is it significant whether the transaction concerned forms part of a chain of transactions aimed at VAT evasion in the country of arrival and the taxable person was aware or should have been aware of it?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Q

(Case C-133/13)

2013/C 171/25

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:

| | Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, |
| --- | --- |

Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken,

| | Staatssecretaris van Financiën |
| --- | --- |

Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Q

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the importance of the conservation of national natural heritage and cultural heritage, as addressed in the Natuurschoonwet 1928 (Law on nature protection 1928), constitute an overriding reason in the public interest which justifies a scheme whereby the application of an exemption from gift tax (recovery facility) is limited to estates situated in the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the importance of the conservation of national natural heritage and cultural heritage, as addressed in the Natuurschoonwet 1928 (Law on nature protection 1928), constitute an overriding reason in the public interest which justifies a scheme whereby the application of an exemption from gift tax (recovery facility) is limited to estates situated in the Netherlands?

| 2. | (a) | May the authorities of a Member State, in the context of an investigation into whether an immovable property situated in another Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of the Natuurschoonwet 1928, rely on Council Directive 2010/24/EU (1) of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, for assistance from the authorities of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated, when the designation as an estate pursuant to that law will result in an exemption being granted from the recovery of the gift tax which will be payable upon donation of that immovable property? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

May the authorities of a Member State, in the context of an investigation into whether an immovable property situated in another Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of the Natuurschoonwet 1928, rely on Council Directive 2010/24/EU (1) of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, for assistance from the authorities of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated, when the designation as an estate pursuant to that law will result in an exemption being granted from the recovery of the gift tax which will be payable upon donation of that immovable property?

| (b) | If question 2(a) must be answered in the affirmative, must the concept of ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU (2) of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that it also covers an on-site investigation? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If question 2(a) must be answered in the affirmative, must the concept of ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU (2) of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that it also covers an on-site investigation?

| (c) | If question 2(b) must be answered in the affirmative, may clarification of the term ‘administrative enquiries’ in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, be sought in the definition of the term ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If question 2(b) must be answered in the affirmative, may clarification of the term ‘administrative enquiries’ in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, be sought in the definition of the term ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC?

| 3. | If question 2(a), question 2(b) or question 2(c) must be answered in the negative, should the principle of sincere cooperation, as laid down in Article 4(3) of the TEU, considered in conjunction with Article 167(2) of the TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State requests another Member State to provide assistance with the investigation of whether an immovable property situated in that other Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of a law which has as its aim the conservation and protection of national natural heritage and cultural heritage, the requested Member State is obliged to provide that assistance? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If question 2(a), question 2(b) or question 2(c) must be answered in the negative, should the principle of sincere cooperation, as laid down in Article 4(3) of the TEU, considered in conjunction with Article 167(2) of the TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State requests another Member State to provide assistance with the investigation of whether an immovable property situated in that other Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of a law which has as its aim the conservation and protection of national natural heritage and cultural heritage, the requested Member State is obliged to provide that assistance?

| 4. | Can a restriction on the free movement of capital be justified by invoking the need to guarantee effective fiscal controls, if it appears that the only risk to effectiveness of those controls is the need for national authorities to travel to another Member State for the period of 25 years referred to in Article 7(1) of the Natuurschoonwet 1928 in order to carry out the necessary controls there? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can a restriction on the free movement of capital be justified by invoking the need to guarantee effective fiscal controls, if it appears that the only risk to effectiveness of those controls is the need for national authorities to travel to another Member State for the period of 25 years referred to in Article 7(1) of the Natuurschoonwet 1928 in order to carry out the necessary controls there?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 84, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Szatmári Malom Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Case C-135/13)

2013/C 171/26

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Szatmári Malom Kft.

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Questions referred

| 1. | May a situation where a business operator, having closed down previous holdings, wishes to establish a new holding without increasing existing capacity be deemed to fall within the concept of improving overall performance of the agricultural holding under Article 26(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May a situation where a business operator, having closed down previous holdings, wishes to establish a new holding without increasing existing capacity be deemed to fall within the concept of improving overall performance of the agricultural holding under Article 26(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development?

| 2. | May the investment to be made by the applicant be interpreted as investment for the purpose of improving overall performance of the enterprise within the meaning of Articles 20(b)(iii) and 28(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005? (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

May the investment to be made by the applicant be interpreted as investment for the purpose of improving overall performance of the enterprise within the meaning of Articles 20(b)(iii) and 28(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005? (1)

| 3. | Is Paragraph 6(3) of the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FVM) No 47/2008 of 17 April 2008 compatible with Article 28(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 in that, as regards mills, only support for operations for the purpose of modernising existing capacity is granted? Does the Regulation empower the national legislature to exclude certain types of development from support for economic reasons? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Paragraph 6(3) of the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FVM) No 47/2008 of 17 April 2008 compatible with Article 28(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 in that, as regards mills, only support for operations for the purpose of modernising existing capacity is granted? Does the Regulation empower the national legislature to exclude certain types of development from support for economic reasons?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-137/13)

2013/C 171/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is legally required only when a provision of European Union law or a provision of national law compatible with European Union law directly requires, in respect of the foodstuff in which the substances referred to are to be incorporated, that the substances referred to be added or at least lays down a minimum content in respect of the substances referred to, which should be incorporated? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is legally required only when a provision of European Union law or a provision of national law compatible with European Union law directly requires, in respect of the foodstuff in which the substances referred to are to be incorporated, that the substances referred to be added or at least lays down a minimum content in respect of the substances referred to, which should be incorporated?

| 2. | Should the first question be answered in the negative: Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 to be understood as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is also legally required where the marketing of a foodstuff as a food supplement or bearing health claims would, without the addition of at least one of the substances referred to, tend to mislead the consumer because the foodstuff cannot, in the absence of one of the substances referred to in sufficient strength, fulfil its stated purpose as a foodstuff or its stated purpose as expressed by the health claim? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the first question be answered in the negative: Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 to be understood as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is also legally required where the marketing of a foodstuff as a food supplement or bearing health claims would, without the addition of at least one of the substances referred to, tend to mislead the consumer because the foodstuff cannot, in the absence of one of the substances referred to in sufficient strength, fulfil its stated purpose as a foodstuff or its stated purpose as expressed by the health claim?

| 3. | Should the first question be answered in the negative: Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 to be understood as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is also legally required where a specific health claim may be used only for foodstuffs which contain a certain, so-called significant, amount of at least one of the substances referred to? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should the first question be answered in the negative: Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 to be understood as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is also legally required where a specific health claim may be used only for foodstuffs which contain a certain, so-called significant, amount of at least one of the substances referred to?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 March 2013 — Naime Dogan v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-138/13)

2013/C 171/28

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Naime Dogan

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey for the transitional stage of the Association (Additional Protocol) preclude a provision of national law which was introduced for the first time after the abovementioned provisions had come into force and which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a Turkish national who enjoys the legal status under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to communicate, in a basic way, in the German language? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey for the transitional stage of the Association (Additional Protocol) preclude a provision of national law which was introduced for the first time after the abovementioned provisions had come into force and which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a Turkish national who enjoys the legal status under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to communicate, in a basic way, in the German language?

| 2. | Does the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) preclude the provision of national law mentioned in Question 1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) preclude the provision of national law mentioned in Question 1?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA

(Case C-143/13)

2013/C 171/29

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Questions referred

Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) the assessment of the unfair nature of contractual terms must relate neither to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language;

and

given that, under Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (2) the definition provided in Article 3(g) of that directive of the total cost of the credit to the consumer, which includes all the fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement, does not apply for the purposes of determining the subject-matter of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage;

Then:

can the concepts of ‘subject-matter’ and/or of ‘price’ referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that such terms — namely the ‘subject-matter’ and/or the ‘price’ of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage — also cover, among the elements which make up the consideration owed to the credit institution, the annual percentage rate of such a credit agreement secured by a mortgage, which is in particular made up of: the interest rate, whether fixed or variable; bank charges; and other costs included and defined in the credit agreement?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

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

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/15

---

Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-146/13)

2013/C 171/30

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Chamizo Llatas and S. Centeno Huerta, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Declare legally non-existent Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and, in the alternative, annul that regulation in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare legally non-existent Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and, in the alternative, annul that regulation in its entirety;

| — | In the alternative, annul:






  (a) | Article 9(1) in its entirety, and Article 9(2) in the terms set out in the fifth plea in law in support of this action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul:

(a)

Article 9(1) in its entirety, and Article 9(2) in the terms set out in the fifth plea in law in support of this action;

| (b) | Article 18(2) in its entirety, and all references in Regulation No 1257/2012 to the Unified Patent Court as the judicial regime for the EPUE [European patent with unitary effect] and as the source of law for the EPUE |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Article 18(2) in its entirety, and all references in Regulation No 1257/2012 to the Unified Patent Court as the judicial regime for the EPUE [European patent with unitary effect] and as the source of law for the EPUE

| — | Order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Breach of the values of the rule of law in so far as a regulation has been established on the basis of a right granted by the European Patent Office, whose acts are not subject to judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Breach of the values of the rule of law in so far as a regulation has been established on the basis of a right granted by the European Patent Office, whose acts are not subject to judicial review.

| 2. | Non-existence of an act of the European Union and, in the alternative, lack of a legal basis for Regulation No 1257/2012 in that it does not introduce measures guaranteeing the uniform protection envisaged in Article 118 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Non-existence of an act of the European Union and, in the alternative, lack of a legal basis for Regulation No 1257/2012 in that it does not introduce measures guaranteeing the uniform protection envisaged in Article 118 TFEU.

| 3. | Misuse of power through the use of enhanced cooperation for purposes other than those provided for in the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Misuse of power through the use of enhanced cooperation for purposes other than those provided for in the Treaties.

| 4. | Infringement of Article 291(2) TFEU and, in the alternative, misapplication of the Meroni case-law in the regulation of the system for setting renewal fees and for determining the ‘share of distribution’ of those fees. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Infringement of Article 291(2) TFEU and, in the alternative, misapplication of the Meroni case-law in the regulation of the system for setting renewal fees and for determining the ‘share of distribution’ of those fees.

| 5. | Misapplication of the Meroni case-law in the delegation to the European Patent Office of certain administrative tasks relating to the European patent with unitary effect. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Misapplication of the Meroni case-law in the delegation to the European Patent Office of certain administrative tasks relating to the European patent with unitary effect.

| 6. | Breach of the principles of autonomy and uniformity in the application of European Union law, as regards the rules governing the entry into force of Regulation No 1257/2012. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Breach of the principles of autonomy and uniformity in the application of European Union law, as regards the rules governing the entry into force of Regulation No 1257/2012.

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 361, p. 1.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/16

---

Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-147/13)

2013/C 171/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta and E. Chamizo Llatas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation No 1260/2012 (1) of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements and order the Council to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation No 1260/2012 (1) of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements and order the Council to pay the costs

| — | Alternatively, annul Articles 4, 5, 6(2), and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements and order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, annul Articles 4, 5, 6(2), and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements and order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination by introducing a scheme to the detriment of persons whose mother tongue is not English, French or German, the scheme being disproportionate to the objective pursued. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination by introducing a scheme to the detriment of persons whose mother tongue is not English, French or German, the scheme being disproportionate to the objective pursued.

| 2. | Lack of legal basis for Article 4 by regulating translation in the event of a dispute, which does not directly affect the language arrangements for the intellectual property right referred to in the second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lack of legal basis for Article 4 by regulating translation in the event of a dispute, which does not directly affect the language arrangements for the intellectual property right referred to in the second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU.

| 3. | Infringement of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

| 4. | Failure to have regard to the case-law in Meroni by delegating the administration of the compensation scheme (Article 5) and the publication of the translations (Article 6(2)) to the European Patent Office. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Failure to have regard to the case-law in Meroni by delegating the administration of the compensation scheme (Article 5) and the publication of the translations (Article 6(2)) to the European Patent Office.

| 5. | Infringement of the principle of the autonomy of European Union law by making the application of the Regulation dependent on the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Infringement of the principle of the autonomy of European Union law by making the application of the Regulation dependent on the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 361, p. 89

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-148/13)

2013/C 171/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-149/13)

2013/C 171/33

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendant:
  Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to the assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-150/13)

2013/C 171/34

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 25 March 2013 — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-151/13)

2013/C 171/35

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Le Rayon d’Or SARL

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Question referred

Must Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive, (1) incorporated in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘healthcare lump sum’ disbursed by sickness insurance funds to residential care homes for the elderly pursuant to Article L. 174-7 of the Code de la sécurité sociale and exempted from value added tax under Article 261(4)(1b) of the Code général des impôts represents a subsidy which is directly linked to the price of the healthcare services provided to residents and which thus falls within the scope of value added tax?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

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

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/18

---

Appeal brought on 28 March 2013 by Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 January 2013 in Case T-474/09 Fercal v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (Jackson Shoes)

(Case C-159/13 P)

2013/C 171/36

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (represented by: A.J. Rodrigues, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 24 January 2013 of the Fifth Chamber of the General Court in Case T-479/09 and, consequently, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 August 2009 in Case R 1253/2008-2 in annulment proceedings No 2004 C (trade mark application No 1 077 858, JACKSON SHOES), notified to the appellant on 30 September 2009, in accordance with the applicable provisions of Community law; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 24 January 2013 of the Fifth Chamber of the General Court in Case T-479/09 and, consequently, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 August 2009 in Case R 1253/2008-2 in annulment proceedings No 2004 C (trade mark application No 1 077 858, JACKSON SHOES), notified to the appellant on 30 September 2009, in accordance with the applicable provisions of Community law;

| — | accordingly, declare that the appellant’s mark remains valid and in force; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, declare that the appellant’s mark remains valid and in force;

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

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Although there are graphic and phonetic similarities between the names JACKSON and JACSON, the comparison of the conflicting signs should be made taking the signs as a whole: JACKSON SHOES/JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB.

It results from Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 that the average consumer’s perception of the marks is decisive in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

An average consumer who makes a global assessment of the conflicting signs will clearly perceive that the two signs are distinctive and of a different type: a trade mark and a trade name — in this instance, as a result of the insertion of the initials ‘AB’, which contribute to dismissing any likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer as a result of the mark ‘JACKSON SHOES’.

In the appellant’s view, that aspect is relevant, since Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC establishes that the perception of the marks by the average consumer is decisive in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

They are signs with very definite and distinct functions: the mark is a sign which is sufficient to distinguish the products or services of one undertaking from those of another (Article 4 in fine of the Trade Mark Regulation), while the trade name identifies an undertaking and distinguishes it from other undertakings.

On the other hand, the use of similar names — which are commonly used in various countries — is not likely to lead to a likelihood of confusion when those names are combined with other elements which do not give rise to confusion on the part of the average consumer and, therefore, do not give rise to unfair competition by leading to confusion between the appellant’s goods and those of the respondent.

An exclusive right to use (in all the Member States of the European Union!) cannot be granted (on the basis of a mere trade name in Sweden) to a name which is commonly used in many countries in the European Union by thousands of people, and also by other undertakings.

The respondent can also not be granted the right to prevent the appellant from registering the mark JACKSON SHOES in Class 25, when other Community trade marks have already been registered in Class 25 with that very name.

Moreover, the respondent acknowledges that the various marks listed and described by the appellant exist on the market, and it has never called any of them into question, never claimed that any of them were likely to lead to confusion on the part of the average consumer, nor claimed that they were in conflict.

Anyone who opts for a distinctive sign made up of an element with weak distinctive character, which is also present in many other distinctive signs of third parties, cannot prevent that same sign (or a similar one) from being reused by third parties, in combination with other elements.

There is nothing precluding the coexistence — which is, in fact, already the case — of distinctive signs with similar names, provided that the marks are distinctive on the whole.

Contrary to what the respondent claims, the appellant has submitted sufficient evidence of its existence and that it is operative commercially not only within the Community but also in countries in North America and North Africa, though not — like the respondent — in the form of catalogues, which are printed only in its mother tongue — thus limiting the geographical scope — but in a multilingual fashion in the form of presentations at the world’s most important shoe fairs.

The Community trade mark JACKSON SHOES cannot be confused with the trade name JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB all the more since they have coexisted for quite some time and neither party has complained of damage resulting from their coexistence, nor called the competition between the products into question. That is because consumers also realise, when faced with the conflicting signs, that they are faced with a trade mark and trade name which, unquestionably, are two distinct signs of a different type.

Moreover, as recognised in the judgment under appeal and accepted by the parties, there is no confusion between the signs on the part of the average consumer and, therefore, they are not likely to be confused with one another, and ‘... the assessment of the similarity of marks must take account of the overall impression created by them (see Case T-438/07 Spa Monopole v OHIM — De Francesco Import (SpagO) ECR II-4115, paragraph 23 and case-law cited).’

Furthermore, for a correct decision to be made in this case, it is highly important to take note of the fact that OHIM has authorised the registration of various marks containing the expression ‘JAKSON’ in relation to shoes, and cannot ignore that reality entirely when deciding on an application to register a new Community trade mark with the same (ordinary) name, ‘JAKSON’.

In ignoring that reality, OHIM acted arbitrarily and thereby infringed the principle of equality.

The judgment under appeal infringes Articles 8(4) and 53(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark.

---

(1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-163/13)

2013/C 171/37

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Turbo.com BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should the national authorities and judicial bodies, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse to apply the VAT exemption in respect of an intra-Community supply where it is established, on the basis of objective evidence, that there was VAT fraud in respect of the goods concerned and that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was participating therein, even if the national law does not make provision under those circumstances for refusing the exemption?

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-164/13)

2013/C 171/38

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should the national authorities and judicial bodies, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse the right to deduct where it is established, on the basis of objective evidence, that there was VAT fraud in respect of the goods concerned and that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was participating therein, even if the national law does not make provision under those circumstances for refusing the right to deduct?

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/19

---

Action brought on 5 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-169/13)

2013/C 171/39

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure the application of Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, (1) with regard to self-employed drivers, and in any event by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 3 to 7 and 11 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure the application of Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, (1) with regard to self-employed drivers, and in any event by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 3 to 7 and 11 of that directive;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2002/15/EC has been applicable to self-employed drivers since 23 March 2009.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 9 April 2013 — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales

(Case C-173/13)

2013/C 171/40

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone

Defendants: Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locale

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article L. 24 and Article R. 37, read in conjunction, of the Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code, as amended by the Finance (Amendment) Law No 2004-1485 of 30 December 2004 and by Decree No 2005-449 of 10 May 2005, indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article L. 24 and Article R. 37, read in conjunction, of the Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code, as amended by the Finance (Amendment) Law No 2004-1485 of 30 December 2004 and by Decree No 2005-449 of 10 May 2005, indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 2. | Does Article 15 of Decree 2003-1306 of 26 December 2003 on the retirement scheme for civil servants affiliated to the Caisse nationale de retraites des agents des collectivités locales indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 15 of Decree 2003-1306 of 26 December 2003 on the retirement scheme for civil servants affiliated to the Caisse nationale de retraites des agents des collectivités locales indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union?

| 3. | In the event that one of the first two questions is answered in the affirmative, can such indirect discrimination be justified on the basis of Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that one of the first two questions is answered in the affirmative, can such indirect discrimination be justified on the basis of Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/20

---

Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union

(Case C-176/13 P)

2013/C 171/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Mellat, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10;

| — | give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Mellat against the contested measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Mellat against the contested measures;

| — | order Bank Mellat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Bank Mellat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council considers that the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2012 in Case T-496/10, Bank Mellat v. Council, is vitiated by the following errors of law:

| 1. | The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Mellat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Mellat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State;

| 2. | The General Court was wrong to hold that certain of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat were insufficiently precise; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court was wrong to hold that certain of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat were insufficiently precise;

| 3. | The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council's file; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council's file;

| 4. | The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat did not satisfy the conditions for designation in the relevant legal acts and were not substantiated, insofar as:






  — | it failed to pay due respect to a finding by the United Nations Security Council concerning Bank Mellat's facilitation of transactions for Iranian nuclear, missile and defence entities; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat did not satisfy the conditions for designation in the relevant legal acts and were not substantiated, insofar as:

—

it failed to pay due respect to a finding by the United Nations Security Council concerning Bank Mellat's facilitation of transactions for Iranian nuclear, missile and defence entities;

| — | it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Mellat's support to Iran's nuclear activities comes from confidential sources; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Mellat's support to Iran's nuclear activities comes from confidential sources;

| — | it wrongly considered that Bank Mellat's admitted provision of banking services to an entity involved in Iran's nuclear proliferation activities before that entity's designation by the UN Security Council was insufficient to justify the imposition of restrictive measures against Bank Mellat. |
| --- | --- |

—

it wrongly considered that Bank Mellat's admitted provision of banking services to an entity involved in Iran's nuclear proliferation activities before that entity's designation by the UN Security Council was insufficient to justify the imposition of restrictive measures against Bank Mellat.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/21

---

Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2013 in Case T-368/11: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL v European Commission

(Case C-199/13 P)

2013/C 171/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS and Travetanche Injection SPRL (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat, R. Cana, avocat)

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

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-368/11; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-368/11; and

| — | annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 (the ‘Contested Regulation’) amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (acrylamide) (1); or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 (the ‘Contested Regulation’) amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (acrylamide) (1); or

| — | alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's Application for annulment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's Application for annulment; and

| — | order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court). |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of the Contested Regulation, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular it:

| — | misinterpreted Regulation 1488/94 (2) when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances; |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpreted Regulation 1488/94 (2) when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances;

| — | misinterpreted Regulation 1488/94 when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment in relation to the evaluation of the exposure data taken into account; |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpreted Regulation 1488/94 when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment in relation to the evaluation of the exposure data taken into account;

| — | erred in law and misinterpreted REACH when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by adopting the Contested Regulation on the basis of information related to a different product than the product subjected to restrictions by the Contested Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law and misinterpreted REACH when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by adopting the Contested Regulation on the basis of information related to a different product than the product subjected to restrictions by the Contested Regulation;

| — | erred in law in holding that the Commission did not infringe the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law in holding that the Commission did not infringe the principle of proportionality;

| — | erred in law in holding that the Commission did not infringe its obligation to state reasons; and |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law in holding that the Commission did not infringe its obligation to state reasons; and

| — | misinterpreted the Contested Regulation in finding that it also covers NMA grouts containing acrylamide. |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpreted the Contested Regulation in finding that it also covers NMA grouts containing acrylamide.

For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-368/11 should be set aside and the Contested Regulation should be annulled.

---

(1)  OJ L 101, p. 12

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93, OJ L 161, p. 3

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/22

---

Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10: Bank Saderat Iran v Council of the European Union

(Case C-200/13 P)

2013/C 171/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and S. Boelaert, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10;

| — | give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Saderat against the contested measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Saderat against the contested measures;

| — | order Bank Saderat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Bank Saderat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council considers that the judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10, Bank Saderat Iran v. Council, is vitiated by the following errors of law:

| 1. | The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Saderat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Saderat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State;

| 2. | The General Court was wrong to hold that one of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Saderat was insufficiently precise; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court was wrong to hold that one of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Saderat was insufficiently precise;

| 3. | The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council’s file; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council’s file;

| 4. | The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Saderat were not substantiated, insofar as:






  — | it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Saderat’s support to Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities comes from confidential sources; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Saderat were not substantiated, insofar as:

—

it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Saderat’s support to Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities comes from confidential sources;

| — | it failed to take due account of a reference in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 (2008) to Bank Saderat in connection with Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to take due account of a reference in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 (2008) to Bank Saderat in connection with Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities;

| — | it was mistaken to consider that the Council needed to produce detailed information concerning Bank Saderat’s handling of letters of credit of two designated entities involved in Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

it was mistaken to consider that the Council needed to produce detailed information concerning Bank Saderat’s handling of letters of credit of two designated entities involved in Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/22

---

Action brought on 18 April 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-209/13)

2013/C 171/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents, M. Hoskins QC, P. Baker QC, V. Wakefield, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2013/52/EU (1) authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2013/52/EU (1) authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax; and

| — | Require the Council to pay the United Kingdom’s costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Require the Council to pay the United Kingdom’s costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is contrary to Article 327 TFEU because it authorizes the adoption of a financial transaction tax (‘FTT’) with extraterritorial effects which will fail to respect the competences, rights and obligations of the Non-Participating States.

Second plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is unlawful because it authorizes the adoption of an FTT with extraterritorial effects for which there is no justification in customary international law.

Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is contrary to Article 332 TFEU because it authorizes enhanced cooperation for an FTT, the implementation of which will inevitably cause costs to be incurred by the Non-Participating States.

---

(1)  OJ L 22, p. 11

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/23

---

Action brought on 19 April 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-211/13)

2013/C 171/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany if the donor or the deceased person and the acquiring party were resident in another Member State at the time of the inheritance or gift, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted if at least one of the two parties concerned was resident in Germany at that time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany if the donor or the deceased person and the acquiring party were resident in another Member State at the time of the inheritance or gift, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted if at least one of the two parties concerned was resident in Germany at that time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU;

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

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The taxation of inheritances and gifts is mitigated under German law by relatively high tax-free allowances, particularly in the case of inheritances and gifts between spouses, between parents and children and between certain relatives. These high tax-free allowances are, however, applicable only if Germany exercises an unrestricted right to tax whereas only a low, flat-rate tax-free allowance is applicable if the right to tax is restricted. According to the criteria which the Court of Justice set out in Mattner
   (1), those rules are incompatible with Article 63 TFEU.

---

(1)  Judgment in Case C-510/08 Mattner [2010] ECR I-3553.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/23

---

Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union

(Case C-215/13 P)

2013/C 171/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO (represented by: B. Evtimov, E. Borovikov, avocats, D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union;

| — | Give a final judgment of the merits of the dispute, and annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (1), insofar as it affects the Appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Give a final judgment of the merits of the dispute, and annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (1), insofar as it affects the Appellants;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs of the Appellants at both instances; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs of the Appellants at both instances;

| — | Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellants incurred in connection with its intervention(s). |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellants incurred in connection with its intervention(s).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the General Court:

| — | Misinterpreted the first sentence of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, first subparagraph, and thereby the corresponding provision of Article 2.2.1.1, first subparagraph of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 in Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation (‘ADA’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpreted the first sentence of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, first subparagraph, and thereby the corresponding provision of Article 2.2.1.1, first subparagraph of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 in Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation (‘ADA’);

| — | Upheld an erroneous legal interpretation and upheld a breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and thereby of the corresponding provision of Article 2.2 ADA; |
| --- | --- |

—

Upheld an erroneous legal interpretation and upheld a breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and thereby of the corresponding provision of Article 2.2 ADA;

| — | Failed to make a correct legal assessment of the relationship between Article 2(5), second sentence, on the one hand, and Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, on the other hand, and as a result upheld an erroneous legal interpretation of Recitals 3 and 4 of the preamble to Regulation (EC) 1972/2002 and therefore of the second sentence of Article 2(5), first subparagraph, and did not ensure the consistency of the latter interpretation/provision with the ADA |
| --- | --- |

—

Failed to make a correct legal assessment of the relationship between Article 2(5), second sentence, on the one hand, and Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, on the other hand, and as a result upheld an erroneous legal interpretation of Recitals 3 and 4 of the preamble to Regulation (EC) 1972/2002 and therefore of the second sentence of Article 2(5), first subparagraph, and did not ensure the consistency of the latter interpretation/provision with the ADA

---

(1)  OJ L 75, p. 1

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/24

---

Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-118/10: Acron OAO v Council of the European Union

(Case C-216/13 P)

2013/C 171/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Acron OAO (represented by: B. Evtimov, E. Borovikov, avocats, D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 in Case T-118/10 Acron OAO v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 in Case T-118/10 Acron OAO v Council of the European Union;

| — | Give a final judgment on the merits of the dispute, and annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1251/2009 of 18 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Russia (1), insofar as it affects the Appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Give a final judgment on the merits of the dispute, and annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1251/2009 of 18 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Russia (1), insofar as it affects the Appellant;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs of the Appellant at both instances; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs of the Appellant at both instances;

| — | Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellant incurred in connection with its intervention(s). |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellant incurred in connection with its intervention(s).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the General Court:

| — | Misinterpreted the first sentence of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, first subparagraph, and thereby the corresponding provision of Article 2.2.1.1, first subparagraph of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 in Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (‘ADA’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpreted the first sentence of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, first subparagraph, and thereby the corresponding provision of Article 2.2.1.1, first subparagraph of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 in Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (‘ADA’);

| — | Upheld an erroneous legal interpretation and upheld a breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and thereby of the corresponding provision of Article 2.2 ADA; |
| --- | --- |

—

Upheld an erroneous legal interpretation and upheld a breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and thereby of the corresponding provision of Article 2.2 ADA;

| — | Failed to make a correct legal assessment of the relationship between Article 2(5), second sentence, on the one hand, and Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, on the other hand, and as a result upheld an erroneous legal interpretation of Recitals 3 and 4 of the preamble to Regulation (EC) 1972/2002 (2) and therefore of the second sentence of Article 2(5), first subparagraph, and did not ensure the consistency of the latter interpretation/provision with the ADA; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failed to make a correct legal assessment of the relationship between Article 2(5), second sentence, on the one hand, and Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, on the other hand, and as a result upheld an erroneous legal interpretation of Recitals 3 and 4 of the preamble to Regulation (EC) 1972/2002 (2) and therefore of the second sentence of Article 2(5), first subparagraph, and did not ensure the consistency of the latter interpretation/provision with the ADA;

| — | Upheld a breach of Article 2(6)(c) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Upheld a breach of Article 2(6)(c) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and a manifest error of assessment.

---

(1)  OJ L 338, p. 5

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 of 5 November 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on the protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union OJ L 305, p. 1

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/25

---

Action brought on 6 May 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-248/13)

2013/C 171/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant submits that the Council unlawfully refrained from adopting the Commission’s proposal for a regulation adjusting the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union pursuant to Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, despite the fact that it is apparent from the mandatory terms of that article that the method for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions is an automatic procedure which leaves the Council no discretion. The abovementioned article obliges the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal before 31 December of the current year. The Commission complains that the Council merely noted that it had no qualified majority to adopt the Commission’s proposal concerning, firstly, the adjustment of salaries and, secondly, the correction coefficients provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations. In the submission of the applicant, the Council has in fact, without any grounds, applied Article 10 of Annex XI, ignoring the Commission and Parliament’s prerogatives. By so doing, the Council has infringed not only the provisions referred to above but also the principle of institutional balance, while committing an misuse of powers.

---

General Court

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — KIN (Wristwatch case)

(Case T-80/10) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design or model representing a wristwatch case - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Overall impression not different - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Related to a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Community design court - Article 91 of Regulation No 6/2002)

2013/C 171/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bell & Ross BV (Zoetermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Guerlain, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: KIN AB (Upplands Väsby, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen and C. Galichet, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 1285/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klockgrossisten i Norden AB and Bell & Ross BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by KIN AB in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by KIN AB in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission

(Case T-288/11) (1)

(Public service contracts - Procurement procedure - Maintenance of the HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations in the Joseph-Bech building in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Equal treatment - Transparency - Proportionality - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 171/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Delvaux, V. Bertrand and M. Devos, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and V. Vanden Acker, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2001 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the procurement procedure relating to the conclusion of a contract for maintenance of HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations at the Joseph-Bech Building in Luxembourg and awarding the contract to another tenderer (OJ 2010/S 241 367523)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Alumina v Council

(Case T-304/11) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Normal value - Representativeness of domestic sales - Profit margin - Ordinary course of trade)

2013/C 171/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alumina d.o.o. (Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ 2011 L 125, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in so far as it concerns Alumina d.o.o.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in so far as it concerns Alumina d.o.o.;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alumina; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alumina;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE)

(Case T-640/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark RELY-ABLE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Ground included for sake of completeness)

2013/C 171/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and C. Steudtner, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2011 (Case R 756/2011-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word sign RELY-ABLE.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — ABC-One v OHMI (SLIM BELLY)

(Case T-61/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SLIM BELLY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 171/53

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (Villach St Magdalen, Austria) (represented by: S. Merz, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2011 (Case R 1077/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SLIM BELLY as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/28

---

Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

(Case T-183/13)

2013/C 171/54

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer and J. Mellor, QC)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 2398/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 2398/2010-4;

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Community trade mark application No 3 660 065 for services in class 38

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 3 203 411

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/28

---

Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

(Case T-184/13)

2013/C 171/55

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor, QC)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 121/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 121/2011-4;

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Community trade mark application No 4 521 084 for products and services in classes 9, 38 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 3 203 411

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/29

---

Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Jannatian v Council

(Case T-187/13)

2013/C 171/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mahmoud Jannatian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Monnerville, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in so far as they concern the applicant : (i) Council Common Position 2008/479/CFSP of 23 June 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1); (ii) Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2);(iii) Council Common Position 2008/652/CFSP of 7 August 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (3);(iv) Council Decision 2009/840/CFSP of 17 November 2009 implementing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (4);(v) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (5);(vi) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (6); (vii) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (7); (viii) Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (8); and (ix) (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 (9) and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in so far as they concern the applicant : (i) Council Common Position 2008/479/CFSP of 23 June 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1); (ii) Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2);(iii) Council Common Position 2008/652/CFSP of 7 August 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (3);(iv) Council Decision 2009/840/CFSP of 17 November 2009 implementing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (4);(v) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (5);(vi) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (6); (vii) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (7); (viii) Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (8); and (ix) (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 (9) and

| — | Order the Council to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of authority of the Council






  — | The applicant states that pursuant to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, restrictive measures can only be adopted by a joint initiative of the Commission and the High Representative. The Contested Decisions and Regulations were adopted by the Council acting alone. They are thus vitiated by lack of authority. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of authority of the Council

—

The applicant states that pursuant to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, restrictive measures can only be adopted by a joint initiative of the Commission and the High Representative. The Contested Decisions and Regulations were adopted by the Council acting alone. They are thus vitiated by lack of authority.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation to the obligation to state reasons






  — | The applicant submits that the reason stated for Mr Jannatian’s listing in Annex II is too imprecise to meet the requirements set by the case law as regards the obligation to state the reasons. In order to comply with the obligation to state the grounds, the Council should have established the concrete and specific elements characterizing the existence of an effective support provided by the applicant to the Government of Iran or to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. The Contested Decisions and Regulations are thus vitiated by a failure to state the grounds. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation to the obligation to state reasons

—

The applicant submits that the reason stated for Mr Jannatian’s listing in Annex II is too imprecise to meet the requirements set by the case law as regards the obligation to state the reasons. In order to comply with the obligation to state the grounds, the Council should have established the concrete and specific elements characterizing the existence of an effective support provided by the applicant to the Government of Iran or to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. The Contested Decisions and Regulations are thus vitiated by a failure to state the grounds.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights






  — | The applicant states that: firstly, insofar as, they fail to state the grounds, the Contested Decisions and Regulations thus infringe the applicant’s rights of defence; secondly, the illegality of the Contested Decisions and Regulations affects these proceedings since on the one hand it hampers the possibility for the applicant to present a defence and, on the other hand, the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations is impaired. It follows that the rights of the applicant to an effective judicial remedy are violated; and lastly, insofar as the applicant has been deprived of his rights of defence and since the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations relating to fund freezing measures - which are by their very nature ‘particularly oppressive’ - is undermined, the applicant was imposed an unjustified restriction of his right to property. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights

—

The applicant states that: firstly, insofar as, they fail to state the grounds, the Contested Decisions and Regulations thus infringe the applicant’s rights of defence; secondly, the illegality of the Contested Decisions and Regulations affects these proceedings since on the one hand it hampers the possibility for the applicant to present a defence and, on the other hand, the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations is impaired. It follows that the rights of the applicant to an effective judicial remedy are violated; and lastly, insofar as the applicant has been deprived of his rights of defence and since the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations relating to fund freezing measures - which are by their very nature ‘particularly oppressive’ - is undermined, the applicant was imposed an unjustified restriction of his right to property.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of evidence against the applicant






  — | The applicant submits that the Council failed to adduce the elements of evidence and information it relied on when it adopted the Contested Decisions and Regulations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of evidence against the applicant

—

The applicant submits that the Council failed to adduce the elements of evidence and information it relied on when it adopted the Contested Decisions and Regulations.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging factual inaccuracy






  — | The applicant submits that contrary to what is stated in the contested Decisions and Regulations, the applicant was no longer Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization at the respective dates of his listing among the persons and entities falling within the ambit of restrictive measures. The Council therefore erred in fact when it listed the applicant for the sole reason that, at the date of the various Contested Decisions and Regulations, he was the Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging factual inaccuracy

—

The applicant submits that contrary to what is stated in the contested Decisions and Regulations, the applicant was no longer Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization at the respective dates of his listing among the persons and entities falling within the ambit of restrictive measures. The Council therefore erred in fact when it listed the applicant for the sole reason that, at the date of the various Contested Decisions and Regulations, he was the Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging error of law






  — | The applicant states that subparagraph b) of Article 20 is not meant to apply per se to individuals who hold managerial positions in an entity listed in Annex VIII. In addition, Article 20 b) provides for this listing of individuals ‘that

  are

  engaged in, directly associated with, or

  providing

  support for, Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.’ By listing the applicant on Annex II without adducing any evidence that the applicant was providing an active and effective support to Iranian nuclear activities at the time of his listing in Annex II, the Council erred in law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging error of law

—

The applicant states that subparagraph b) of Article 20 is not meant to apply per se to individuals who hold managerial positions in an entity listed in Annex VIII. In addition, Article 20 b) provides for this listing of individuals ‘that

  are

  engaged in, directly associated with, or

  providing

  support for, Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.’ By listing the applicant on Annex II without adducing any evidence that the applicant was providing an active and effective support to Iranian nuclear activities at the time of his listing in Annex II, the Council erred in law.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts and violation of the proportionality principle






  — | The applicant states that in the case at hand no objective of general interest might justify that such stringent measures be imposed on individuals having held even for a brief period a managing position with the AEOI. Furthermore, even if the measures were considered as being justified by an objective of general interest, they would still be open to criticism by failing to respect a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts and violation of the proportionality principle

—

The applicant states that in the case at hand no objective of general interest might justify that such stringent measures be imposed on individuals having held even for a brief period a managing position with the AEOI. Furthermore, even if the measures were considered as being justified by an objective of general interest, they would still be open to criticism by failing to respect a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.

---

(1)  Official Journal of the European Union, 24 June 2008, No. L 163/43.

(2)  Journal of the European Union, 24 June 2008, No. L 163/29.

(3)  Official Journal of the European Union, 8 August 2008, No. L 213/58.

(4)  Official Journal of the European Union, 18 November 2009, No. L 303/64.

(5)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 July 2010, L 195/39.

(6)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 October 2010, L 281/81.

(7)  Official Journal of the European Union, 18 November 2009, No. L 303/31.

(8)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 October 2010, L 281/1.

(9)  Official Journal of the European Union, 24 March 2012, L 88/1.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Transworld Oil Computer Centrum and Others v Eurojust

(Case T-192/13)

2013/C 171/57

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Transworld Oil Computer Centrum BV (Berg en Dal, Netherlands); Transworld Payment Solutions Ltd (Bermuda); Transworld ICT Solutions Ltd (Bangalore, India); Transworld Oil USA, Inc. (Houston, United States of America); Bermuda First Curaçao Ltd (Bermuda); and Johannes Christiaan Martinus Augustinus Maria Deuss (Bermuda) (represented by: T. Barkhuysen, lawyer)

Defendant: Eurojust

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Eurojust’s confirmatory decision of 2 February 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Eurojust’s confirmatory decision of 2 February 2013;

| — | direct Eurojust to adopt a new decision on the basis of the confirmatory application of 31 December 2012, taking account of the judgment of the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

direct Eurojust to adopt a new decision on the basis of the confirmatory application of 31 December 2012, taking account of the judgment of the General Court; and

| — | order Eurojust to pay the costs incurred in connection with consideration of the present application and those incurred in connection with the confirmatory application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Eurojust to pay the costs incurred in connection with consideration of the present application and those incurred in connection with the confirmatory application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure by Eurojust to examine all the legal grounds on which the applicants rely
  The application for information of 4 October 2012 and the confirmatory application for information of 31 December 2013 are based on different grounds, including Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 8(2), 41(2) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389). Nevertheless the contested decision of Eurojust was based exclusively on Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents. Eurojust erroneously disregarded the other grounds on which the applicants rely. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure by Eurojust to examine all the legal grounds on which the applicants rely

The application for information of 4 October 2012 and the confirmatory application for information of 31 December 2013 are based on different grounds, including Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 8(2), 41(2) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389). Nevertheless the contested decision of Eurojust was based exclusively on Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents. Eurojust erroneously disregarded the other grounds on which the applicants rely.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of care in the taking of the confirmatory decision and an inadequate statement of reasons
  Eurojust refuses to provide the information requested, referring to the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of its rules regarding access to documents. However, Eurojust does not explain in the contested decision, or does not sufficiently explain, why and to what extent those exceptions apply in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of care in the taking of the confirmatory decision and an inadequate statement of reasons

Eurojust refuses to provide the information requested, referring to the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of its rules regarding access to documents. However, Eurojust does not explain in the contested decision, or does not sufficiently explain, why and to what extent those exceptions apply in the present case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘national investigation’ and ‘fight against serious crime’ exceptions provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of its rules regarding access to documents
  The applicants have a reasonable and justified suspicion that (a) prosecution authority/ies has/have acted unlawfully in the criminal (preliminary) investigation. With a view to further substantiating that suspicion they, inter alia, submitted an application for information to Eurojust. Eurojust states that the information requested cannot be provided because a judicial preliminary investigation is still underway. According to the applicants, Eurojust is relying on those exceptions erroneously and without adequate reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘national investigation’ and ‘fight against serious crime’ exceptions provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of its rules regarding access to documents

The applicants have a reasonable and justified suspicion that (a) prosecution authority/ies has/have acted unlawfully in the criminal (preliminary) investigation. With a view to further substantiating that suspicion they, inter alia, submitted an application for information to Eurojust. Eurojust states that the information requested cannot be provided because a judicial preliminary investigation is still underway. According to the applicants, Eurojust is relying on those exceptions erroneously and without adequate reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘privacy and integrity of the individuals’ exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents
  Eurojust has neither asserted nor established that the documents requested contain third parties’ personal data. Furthermore, the mere fact that a document contains personal data does not necessarily mean that the privacy or integrity of an individual is affected. Any statements that may have been made by officials that were not made in a personal capacity cannot justify the withholding of the information requested.
  In so far as the integrity and privacy of individuals are at issue, Eurojust ought to have considered whether and how the documents requested could have been supplied — if necessary in anonymised form or in part only. Eurojust also failed, erroneously, to do so. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘privacy and integrity of the individuals’ exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents

Eurojust has neither asserted nor established that the documents requested contain third parties’ personal data. Furthermore, the mere fact that a document contains personal data does not necessarily mean that the privacy or integrity of an individual is affected. Any statements that may have been made by officials that were not made in a personal capacity cannot justify the withholding of the information requested.

In so far as the integrity and privacy of individuals are at issue, Eurojust ought to have considered whether and how the documents requested could have been supplied — if necessary in anonymised form or in part only. Eurojust also failed, erroneously, to do so.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘fulfilment of the applicable rules on professional secrecy’ exception provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents
  Reliance on that exception is not justified. The applicants are unable to establish which confidentiality rules are supposed to be applicable here, and they doubt that confidentiality rules apply that would preclude provision of the documents requested. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘fulfilment of the applicable rules on professional secrecy’ exception provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents

Reliance on that exception is not justified. The applicants are unable to establish which confidentiality rules are supposed to be applicable here, and they doubt that confidentiality rules apply that would preclude provision of the documents requested.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/31

---

Action brought on 3 April 2013 — dm-drogerie markt/ OHIM — V-Contact (CAMEA)

(Case T-195/13)

2013/C 171/58

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: B. Beinert and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: V-Contact Kft (Szada, Hungary)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1) and, by way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1) and, by way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark;

| — | Alternatively annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1) and, remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1) and, remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation;

| — | Alternatively annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1). |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CAMEA’ for, inter alia, goods in classes 3, 5 and 16 — Community trade mark application No 9 279 928

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration designating, inter alia, the European Union and covering goods in classes 3, 5 and 8

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/31

---

Action brought on 5 April 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp/OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana)

(Case T-196/13)

2013/C 171/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero (Maarssen, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 January 2013 in case R 300/2012-1, relating to cancellation proceedings No. 000005025 C (Community trademark No. 005205125) between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero h.o.d.n. La Nana; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 January 2013 in case R 300/2012-1, relating to cancellation proceedings No. 000005025 C (Community trademark No. 005205125) between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero h.o.d.n. La Nana;

| — | Order the Defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘la nana’ for goods of classes 16, 20 and 24 — Community trade mark registration No 5 205 125

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 8(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety based on Article 57(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), Article 57(2) and (3) and Article 78 (1)(f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/32

---

Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)

(Case T-198/13)

2013/C 171/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Imax Corporation (Mississauga, Canada) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer, and K. Hughes, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Himax Technologies, Inc. (Tainan County, Taiwan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 23 January 2013 in Case R 740/2012-5; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 23 January 2013 in Case R 740/2012-5; and

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, the intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IMAX’ for goods in classes 9, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 9 392 556

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations No 4 411 658 and No 4 411 641 of the figurative mark ‘Himax’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/32

---

Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV, De Luca v Commission

(Case T-200/13 P)

2013/C 171/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV De Luca v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV De Luca v Commission;

| — | Giving judgment itself,






  — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2005 to appoint the appellant as an administrator, in so far as it sets her classification at grade A*9 step 2; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Giving judgment itself,

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2005 to appoint the appellant as an administrator, in so far as it sets her classification at grade A*9 step 2;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs in respect of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs in respect of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal alleging the following errors of law:






  — | the Civil Service Tribunal interpreted the judgment of 14 December 2011 in Case T-563/10 P De Luca v Commission as restricting the examination of the legality of the contested decision at first instance solely to the effects of the application by analogy of the rules on recruitment without taking into account the pre-eminence of the applicable provisions concerning normal career progression; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal alleging the following errors of law:

—

the Civil Service Tribunal interpreted the judgment of 14 December 2011 in Case T-563/10 P De Luca v Commission as restricting the examination of the legality of the contested decision at first instance solely to the effects of the application by analogy of the rules on recruitment without taking into account the pre-eminence of the applicable provisions concerning normal career progression;

| — | the Civil Service Tribunal held that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union could lawfully apply by analogy, but stated that that did not constitute an advantage for the appellant in terms of career and that the limited advantage in terms of remuneration would ultimately disappear; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Civil Service Tribunal held that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union could lawfully apply by analogy, but stated that that did not constitute an advantage for the appellant in terms of career and that the limited advantage in terms of remuneration would ultimately disappear;

| — | the Civil Service Tribunal did not carry out an examination of the legality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of its application by analogy to the appellant taking into account the principle of equal treatment and of the right to reasonable career prospects; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Civil Service Tribunal did not carry out an examination of the legality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of its application by analogy to the appellant taking into account the principle of equal treatment and of the right to reasonable career prospects;

| — | it is for the Civil Service Tribunal to ascertain, and not for the appellant to establish, the manifestly inappropriate nature of the application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is for the Civil Service Tribunal to ascertain, and not for the appellant to establish, the manifestly inappropriate nature of the application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | the Civil Service Tribunal rejected at the outset, without an in-depth examination, the appellant’s argument alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment resulting from the fact that the eligibility of officials for promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations is maintained notwithstanding the amendments to the Staff Regulations which have taken place, although this does not, on account of the application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, apply to the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Civil Service Tribunal rejected at the outset, without an in-depth examination, the appellant’s argument alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment resulting from the fact that the eligibility of officials for promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations is maintained notwithstanding the amendments to the Staff Regulations which have taken place, although this does not, on account of the application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, apply to the appellant.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/33

---

Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Group’Hygiène v Commission

(Case T-202/13)

2013/C 171/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Group’Hygiène (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission, inasmuch as the Commission may not, on the basis of its implementing powers, amend essential elements of the basic legislation. Since Directive 2013/2/EU (1) expanded the definition of packaging to products which are not referred to in Directive 94/62/EC (2), Directive 2013/2/EU is therefore vitiated by lack of competence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission, inasmuch as the Commission may not, on the basis of its implementing powers, amend essential elements of the basic legislation. Since Directive 2013/2/EU (1) expanded the definition of packaging to products which are not referred to in Directive 94/62/EC (2), Directive 2013/2/EU is therefore vitiated by lack of competence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of the general principles of European Union law on the obligation to state reasons as Directive 2013/2/EU does not explain the reasons why only some rolls, tubes and cylinders constitute packaging. The applicant submits that the statement of reasons for the measure was particularly necessary because the contested measure constitutes a change in position as against the relevant previous positions of the bodies of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of the general principles of European Union law on the obligation to state reasons as Directive 2013/2/EU does not explain the reasons why only some rolls, tubes and cylinders constitute packaging. The applicant submits that the statement of reasons for the measure was particularly necessary because the contested measure constitutes a change in position as against the relevant previous positions of the bodies of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Directive 94/62/EC inasmuch as it is obvious that rolls, tubes and cylinders may not be categorised as packaging as a roll, tube or cylinder is a purely internal part of a product and does not correspond to the legal definition of packaging used in Directive 94/62/EC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Directive 94/62/EC inasmuch as it is obvious that rolls, tubes and cylinders may not be categorised as packaging as a roll, tube or cylinder is a purely internal part of a product and does not correspond to the legal definition of packaging used in Directive 94/62/EC.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment as Directive 2013/2/EU treats comparable situations differently inasmuch as the directive does not categorise industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders as packaging, although industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders and non-industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders are in an objectively comparable situation, and inasmuch as products with characteristics similar to rolls, tubes and cylinders are excluded from the category of packaging. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment as Directive 2013/2/EU treats comparable situations differently inasmuch as the directive does not categorise industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders as packaging, although industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders and non-industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders are in an objectively comparable situation, and inasmuch as products with characteristics similar to rolls, tubes and cylinders are excluded from the category of packaging.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations inasmuch as Directive 2013/2/EU abruptly, and without transitional measures, calls in question the approach taken by the European Union legislature according to which rolls, tubes and cylinders are not packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62/EC. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations inasmuch as Directive 2013/2/EU abruptly, and without transitional measures, calls in question the approach taken by the European Union legislature according to which rolls, tubes and cylinders are not packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62/EC.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality inasmuch as the contested measure gives rise to disproportionate financial consequences for the economic operators in the sector because, unlike the other manufacturers subject to the legislation relating to packaging, manufacturers of rolls, tubes and cylinders cannot reduce the volume of rolls, tubes and cylinders produced as they are absolutely necessary and integrated into the products. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality inasmuch as the contested measure gives rise to disproportionate financial consequences for the economic operators in the sector because, unlike the other manufacturers subject to the legislation relating to packaging, manufacturers of rolls, tubes and cylinders cannot reduce the volume of rolls, tubes and cylinders produced as they are absolutely necessary and integrated into the products.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10.

(2)  European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/34

---

Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)

(Case T-206/13)

2013/C 171/63

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stance, Inc. (San Clemente, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pokarna Ltd (Secundrabad, India)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 1 February 2013 in Case R 885/2012-5 pertaining to the opposition based on Community trademark registration No. 005 491 329 against Community trademark application No. 008 957 516‘STANCE’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 1 February 2013 in Case R 885/2012-5 pertaining to the opposition based on Community trademark registration No. 005 491 329 against Community trademark application No. 008 957 516‘STANCE’;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STANCE’ for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application 8 957 516

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the black and white figurative mark ‘STANZA’, for goods and services in classes 25 et 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 65, 8(1)(b), 75, 76(1), (2) and 83 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/34

---

Action brought on 10 April 2013 — 1872 Holdings/OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA)

(Case T-207/13)

2013/C 171/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: 1872 Holdings vof (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Havana Club International, SA (Havana, Cuba)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Marked of 31 January 2013 in case R 684/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Marked of 31 January 2013 in case R 684/2012-1;

| — | Order the Office to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘THE SPIRIT OF CUBA’ for goods and services of classes 33, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 2 109 106

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application of invalidity was based on Articles 52(1)(a) and 7 (1)(b), (c) and (g) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/35

---

Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission

(Case T-214/13)

2013/C 171/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rainer Typke (Hasbergen, Germany) (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 February 2013 denying applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — in the procedure GESTDEM 2012/3258; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 February 2013 denying applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — in the procedure GESTDEM 2012/3258;

| — | Annul the implied negative decision of the European Commission of 13 March 2013 on applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the procedure GESTDEM 2013/0068; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implied negative decision of the European Commission of 13 March 2013 on applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the procedure GESTDEM 2013/0068;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as well as of other provisions of the said regulation, as:

| — | The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s request would not fall within the realm of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, implying the creation of new documents instead of the access to existing ones, is unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s request would not fall within the realm of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, implying the creation of new documents instead of the access to existing ones, is unfounded;

| — | The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be disproportionate, therefore inadmissible, even if considering the possibility of granting partial access, is unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be disproportionate, therefore inadmissible, even if considering the possibility of granting partial access, is unfounded;

| — | The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need not to disclose third parties’ personal data is unfounded; and |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need not to disclose third parties’ personal data is unfounded; and

| — | The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Selection Board, and by the need to protect the latter’s decision making process, is unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Selection Board, and by the need to protect the latter’s decision making process, is unfounded.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/35

---

Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

(Case T-220/13)

2013/C 171/66

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Pleas in law

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-219/13 Ferracci v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/35

---

Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte v Commission

(Case T-223/13)

2013/C 171/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG (Minden, Germany) (represented by: H. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds to the examples of products constituting packaging ‘rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds to the examples of products constituting packaging ‘rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound’;

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to the first five pleas in law relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Melitta France v Commission

(Case T-224/13)

2013/C 171/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Melitta France (Chezy-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: H.Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds to the examples of products constituting packaging ‘rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds to the examples of products constituting packaging ‘rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound’;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to the first five pleas put forward in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-226/13 P)

2013/C 171/69

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;

| — | Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

These proceedings are brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 rejecting as manifestly lacking any foundation in law an action seeking: (i) annulment of the decision by which the European Commission rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage arising as a result of the fact that a letter concerning the manner in which the judgment of the Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission was to be enforced was sent to the lawyer who represented him in the appeal proceedings against that judgment; and (ii) an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage purportedly caused as a result of that act.

In support of his appeal, the appellant alleges an absolute failure to state reasons for the rejection of his claim for compensation, by reason, inter alia, of failure to make inquiries, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, arbitrary reasoning and incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

| | the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union;

| | the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature; |
| --- | --- |

the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature;

| | the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution. |
| --- | --- |

the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.

| | The appellant also contends that the ruling of the court at first instance on costs was unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

The appellant also contends that the ruling of the court at first instance on costs was unlawful.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/37

---

Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-229/13 P)

2013/C 171/70

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception;

| — | Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/37

---

Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Wepa Lille v Commission

(Case T-231/13)

2013/C 171/71

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Wepa Lille (Bousbecque, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/37

---

Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission

(Case T-232/13)

2013/C 171/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SCA Hygiène Products (Tremblay en France, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/38

---

Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Hartmann v Commission

(Case T-233/13)

2013/C 171/73

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paul Hartmann SA (Châtenois, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/38

---

Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Lucart France v Commission

(Case T-234/13)

2013/C 171/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lucart France (Torvilliers, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/38

---

Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Gopack v Commission

(Case T-235/13)

2013/C 171/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gopack (Manosque, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/38

---

Action brought on 23 April 2013 — CMC France v Commission

(Case T-236/13)

2013/C 171/76

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CMC France (Châtenois, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

---

Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Tissue France v Commission

(Case T-237/13)

2013/C 171/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SCA Tissue France (Bois Colombes, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds hollow tubes, except those intended for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds hollow tubes, except those intended for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

---

Action brought on 24 April 2013 — Delipapier v Commission

(Case T-238/13)

2013/C 171/78

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Delipapier (Frouard, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

---

Action brought on 30 April 2013 — ICT v Commission

(Case T-243/13)

2013/C 171/79

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA (ICT) (Borgo a Mozzano, Italy) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/40

---

Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission

(Case T-244/13)

2013/C 171/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/40

---

Order of the General Court of 26 April 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-194/07) (1)

2013/C 171/81

Language of the case: Czech

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

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/40

---

Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-221/07) (1)

2013/C 171/82

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/40

---

Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission

(Case T-143/13) (1)

2013/C 171/83

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/41

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — CB v Commission

(Case F-73/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/181/10 - Non-admission to the assessment tests)

2013/C 171/84

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CB (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in the competition EPSO/AD/181/10.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by CB. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by CB.

| 3. | Orders CB to bear half of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders CB to bear half of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.11, p. 53.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/41

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — Demeneix v Commission

(Case F-96/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Open competition - Not included on the reserve list - Criterion related to professional experience - Scope of discretion)

2013/C 171/85

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant:
  Laurent Demeneix (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant:
  European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board EPSO/AD/207/11 upholding the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that the applicant does not fulfil certain specific criteria for admission to that competition and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Demeneix to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Demeneix to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.12, p. 23.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/41

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9.4.2013 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission

(Case F-126/12) (1)

2013/C 171/86

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013, p. 29.

---

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/41

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18.4.2013 — Rosenbaum v Commission

(Case F-6/13) (1)

2013/C 171/87

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013, p. 39.

---