# Official Journal C 164/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.164.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 164 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 568 June 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.164.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 164

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 568 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 164/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 156, 1.6.2013 | 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 164/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 156, 1.6.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 164/02 | Case C-625/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(3) and Annex II — Directive 2001/14/EC — Article 14(2) — Lack of legal independence of the railway infrastructure manager — Article 11 — Absence of a performance scheme — Incomplete transposition) | 2 |
| 2013/C 164/03 | Case C-103/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA (Appeals — Articles 225(1) EC, 235 EC and 288, second paragraph, EC — Action in non-contractual liability against the European Community — Assessment of the non-contractual character of the dispute — Jurisdiction of the Community Courts) | 2 |
| 2013/C 164/04 | Case C-202/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium — Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch — Cross-border employment contract — Restriction — Disproportionate) | 3 |
| 2013/C 164/05 | Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 — Kingdom of Spain and Italian Republic v Council of the European Union (Unitary patent — Decision authorising enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU — Actions for annulment on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of powers and infringement of the Treaties — Conditions laid down in Article 20 TEU and in Articles 326 TFEU and 327 TFEU — Non-exclusive competence — Decision adopted as a last resort — Preserving the interests of the Union) | 3 |
| 2013/C 164/06 | Case C-463/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — L v M (Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Article 3(4) and (5) — Determination of the type of plans likely to have significant environmental effects — Building plan for development within an urban area exempted from an environmental assessment under national legislation — Incorrect assessment of the qualitative condition of inner city development — No effect on the legal validity of the building plan — Effectiveness of the directive undermined) | 4 |
| 2013/C 164/07 | Case C-548/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 1(r) — Definition of periods of insurance — Article 46 — Calculation of retirement pension — Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration — Frontier workers — Period of incapacity for work — Aggregation of similar benefits paid by two Member States — No account taken of a period of incapacity for work as a period of insurance — Residence requirement — Nation rules precluding the cumulation of benefits) | 5 |
| 2013/C 164/08 | Case C-565/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law — National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax — Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax — Non-compliance with European Union law — Principle of effectiveness) | 5 |
| 2013/C 164/09 | Case C-595/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of fluorescent compact lamps — Applicability of definitive anti-dumping duties to products classed in the tariff subheading referred to in the anti-dumping regulation — Product concerned — Scope) | 6 |
| 2013/C 164/10 | Case C-12/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co. (Trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 15(1) — Definition of genuine use — Trade mark used only as one element of a composite mark or in conjunction with another mark) | 6 |
| 2013/C 164/11 | Case C-247/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Meliha Veli Mustafa v Direktor na fond Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut (Protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC — Directive 2002/74/EC — Directive 2008/94/EC — Articles 2 and 3 — Obligation to provide a guarantee for employees’ claims — Possibility of limiting the guarantee to claims arising before the entry of the decision to open the insolvency proceedings in the register of companies — Decision to open the insolvency proceedings — Effects — Continuation of the employer’s activity) | 7 |
| 2013/C 164/12 | Case C-74/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 12 February 2013 — GSV Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága | 7 |
| 2013/C 164/13 | Case C-102/13 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2013 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11 Germany v Commission | 8 |
| 2013/C 164/14 | Case C-119/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy | 9 |
| 2013/C 164/15 | Case C-120/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk | 9 |
| 2013/C 164/16 | Case C-121/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd. | 10 |
| 2013/C 164/17 | Case C-126/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11 BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 10 |
| 2013/C 164/18 | Case C-132/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH | 11 |
| 2013/C 164/19 | Case C-158/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie | 11 |
| 2013/C 164/20 | Case C-166/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun (France) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis | 11 |
| 2013/C 164/21 | Case C-167/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgique) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Jean Devillers | 12 |
| 2013/C 164/22 | Case C-189/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques | 12 |
| 2013/C 164/23 | Case C-203/13: Action brought on 17 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria | 12 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 164/24 | Case T-32/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Market analysis in view of developing a new approach for a website — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Selection criteria and award criteria — Non-contractual liability) | 14 |
| 2013/C 164/25 | Case T-526/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatamiand Others v Commission (Trade in seal products — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Detailed rules for implementation — Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 — Prohibition on placing such products on the market — Exception in favour of Inuit communities — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Subsidiarity — Proportionality — Misuse of powers) | 14 |
| 2013/C 164/26 | Case T-119/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gbagbo v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Alteration of heads of claim — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of power — Rights of the defence — Right to property) | 15 |
| 2013/C 164/27 | Case T-130/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gossio v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment) | 15 |
| 2013/C 164/28 | Case T-284/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark METROINVEST — Earlier national figurative mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Principle of non-discrimination — Right to a fair hearing) | 16 |
| 2013/C 164/29 | Case T-55/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning device) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cleaning device — Community three-dimensional mark representing a cleaning device fitted with a spraying device and a sponge — Declaration of invalidity) | 16 |
| 2013/C 164/30 | Case T-145/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v OHIM (ECO PRO) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark ECO PRO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 16 |
| 2013/C 164/31 | Case T-474/11: Order of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama) (Community trade mark — Annulment of the opposing trade mark — No need to adjudicate) | 17 |
| 2013/C 164/32 | Case T-28/12: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Adoption of a new regulation — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 17 |
| 2013/C 164/33 | Case T-124/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission | 18 |
| 2013/C 164/34 | Case T-174/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11, BO v Commission | 19 |
| 2013/C 164/35 | Case T-182/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Moallem Insurance v Council | 19 |
| 2013/C 164/36 | Case T-189/13: Action brought on 3 April 2013 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission | 20 |
| 2013/C 164/37 | Case T-201/13: Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Rubinum SA v Commission | 21 |
| 2013/C 164/38 | Case T-208/13: Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Portugal Telecom v Commission | 22 |
| 2013/C 164/39 | Case T-219/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Ferracci v Commission | 23 |
| 2013/C 164/40 | Case T-222/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — B&S Europe v Commission | 24 |
| 2013/C 164/41 | Case T-353/08: Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste v Commission | 24 |
| 2013/C 164/42 | Case T-520/10: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission | 25 |
| 2013/C 164/43 | Case T-485/12: Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (SANISSIMO) | 25 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 164/02

Case C-625/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(3) and Annex II — Directive 2001/14/EC — Article 14(2) — Lack of legal independence of the railway infrastructure manager — Article 11 — Absence of a performance scheme — Incomplete transposition)

2

2013/C 164/03

Case C-103/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA (Appeals — Articles 225(1) EC, 235 EC and 288, second paragraph, EC — Action in non-contractual liability against the European Community — Assessment of the non-contractual character of the dispute — Jurisdiction of the Community Courts)

2

2013/C 164/04

Case C-202/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium — Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch — Cross-border employment contract — Restriction — Disproportionate)

3

2013/C 164/05

Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 — Kingdom of Spain and Italian Republic v Council of the European Union (Unitary patent — Decision authorising enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU — Actions for annulment on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of powers and infringement of the Treaties — Conditions laid down in Article 20 TEU and in Articles 326 TFEU and 327 TFEU — Non-exclusive competence — Decision adopted as a last resort — Preserving the interests of the Union)

3

2013/C 164/06

Case C-463/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — L v M (Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Article 3(4) and (5) — Determination of the type of plans likely to have significant environmental effects — Building plan for development within an urban area exempted from an environmental assessment under national legislation — Incorrect assessment of the qualitative condition of inner city development — No effect on the legal validity of the building plan — Effectiveness of the directive undermined)

4

2013/C 164/07

Case C-548/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 1(r) — Definition of periods of insurance — Article 46 — Calculation of retirement pension — Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration — Frontier workers — Period of incapacity for work — Aggregation of similar benefits paid by two Member States — No account taken of a period of incapacity for work as a period of insurance — Residence requirement — Nation rules precluding the cumulation of benefits)

5

2013/C 164/08

Case C-565/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law — National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax — Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax — Non-compliance with European Union law — Principle of effectiveness)

5

2013/C 164/09

Case C-595/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of fluorescent compact lamps — Applicability of definitive anti-dumping duties to products classed in the tariff subheading referred to in the anti-dumping regulation — Product concerned — Scope)

6

2013/C 164/10

Case C-12/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co. (Trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 15(1) — Definition of genuine use — Trade mark used only as one element of a composite mark or in conjunction with another mark)

6

2013/C 164/11

Case C-247/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Meliha Veli Mustafa v Direktor na fond Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut (Protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC — Directive 2002/74/EC — Directive 2008/94/EC — Articles 2 and 3 — Obligation to provide a guarantee for employees’ claims — Possibility of limiting the guarantee to claims arising before the entry of the decision to open the insolvency proceedings in the register of companies — Decision to open the insolvency proceedings — Effects — Continuation of the employer’s activity)

7

2013/C 164/12

Case C-74/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 12 February 2013 — GSV Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

7

2013/C 164/13

Case C-102/13 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2013 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11 Germany v Commission

8

2013/C 164/14

Case C-119/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

9

2013/C 164/15

Case C-120/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk

9

2013/C 164/16

Case C-121/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.

10

2013/C 164/17

Case C-126/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11 BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

10

2013/C 164/18

Case C-132/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH

11

2013/C 164/19

Case C-158/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

11

2013/C 164/20

Case C-166/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun (France) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

11

2013/C 164/21

Case C-167/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgique) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Jean Devillers

12

2013/C 164/22

Case C-189/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

12

2013/C 164/23

Case C-203/13: Action brought on 17 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

12

General Court

2013/C 164/24

Case T-32/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Market analysis in view of developing a new approach for a website — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Selection criteria and award criteria — Non-contractual liability)

14

2013/C 164/25

Case T-526/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatamiand Others v Commission (Trade in seal products — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Detailed rules for implementation — Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 — Prohibition on placing such products on the market — Exception in favour of Inuit communities — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Subsidiarity — Proportionality — Misuse of powers)

14

2013/C 164/26

Case T-119/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gbagbo v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Alteration of heads of claim — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of power — Rights of the defence — Right to property)

15

2013/C 164/27

Case T-130/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gossio v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

15

2013/C 164/28

Case T-284/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark METROINVEST — Earlier national figurative mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Principle of non-discrimination — Right to a fair hearing)

16

2013/C 164/29

Case T-55/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning device) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cleaning device — Community three-dimensional mark representing a cleaning device fitted with a spraying device and a sponge — Declaration of invalidity)

16

2013/C 164/30

Case T-145/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v OHIM (ECO PRO) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark ECO PRO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

16

2013/C 164/31

Case T-474/11: Order of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama) (Community trade mark — Annulment of the opposing trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

17

2013/C 164/32

Case T-28/12: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Adoption of a new regulation — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

17

2013/C 164/33

Case T-124/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission

18

2013/C 164/34

Case T-174/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11, BO v Commission

19

2013/C 164/35

Case T-182/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Moallem Insurance v Council

19

2013/C 164/36

Case T-189/13: Action brought on 3 April 2013 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission

20

2013/C 164/37

Case T-201/13: Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Rubinum SA v Commission

21

2013/C 164/38

Case T-208/13: Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Portugal Telecom v Commission

22

2013/C 164/39

Case T-219/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Ferracci v Commission

23

2013/C 164/40

Case T-222/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — B&S Europe v Commission

24

2013/C 164/41

Case T-353/08: Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste v Commission

24

2013/C 164/42

Case T-520/10: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

25

2013/C 164/43

Case T-485/12: Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (SANISSIMO)

25

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/1

---

2013/C 164/01

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

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013

Past publications

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

OJ C 108, 13.4.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-625/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 14(2) - Lack of legal independence of the railway infrastructure manager - Article 11 - Absence of a performance scheme - Incomplete transposition)

2013/C 164/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and Articles 6(2) to (5), 14(2) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the entity entrusted with the exercise of essential functions listed in Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, is independent of the undertaking which provides railway transport services, in accordance with Article 6(3) of that directive and Annex II thereto and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, and by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 11 of Directive 2001/14 within the prescribed time limit, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the entity entrusted with the exercise of essential functions listed in Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, is independent of the undertaking which provides railway transport services, in accordance with Article 6(3) of that directive and Annex II thereto and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, and by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 11 of Directive 2001/14 within the prescribed time limit, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA

(Case C-103/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Articles 225(1) EC, 235 EC and 288, second paragraph, EC - Action in non-contractual liability against the European Community - Assessment of the non-contractual character of the dispute - Jurisdiction of the Community Courts)

2013/C 164/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, E. Montaguti and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Berenboom, avocaat, and M. Isgour, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer and E. De Boissieu, avocats)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission, concerning an action for damages in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants at first instance as a result of unlawful conduct which occurred following a Commission invitation to tender concerning the maintenance and linguistic strengthening of its system of automatic translation — Erroneous assessment and contradictions concerning the non-contractual nature of the dispute — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Disregard of the rules concerning the taking of evidence — Manifest error of assessment regarding the sufficiently serious nature of the breach constituted by the Commission’s supposed fault — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission;

| 2. | Dismisses the action of Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA in Case T-19/07; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action of Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA in Case T-19/07;

| 3. | Orders Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV

(Case C-202/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch - Cross-border employment contract - Restriction - Disproportionate)

2013/C 164/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton Las

Defendant: PSA Antwerp NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Art. 39 EC (now Art. 45 TFEU) — Belgian regional legislation imposing an obligation on an undertaking established in the Dutch language region to draft, on pain of nullity, all documents relating to an employment relationship with an international character in Dutch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which requires all employers whose established place of business is located in that entity’s territory to draft cross-border employment contracts exclusively in the official language of that federated entity, failing which the contracts are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.

---

(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 — Kingdom of Spain and Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11) (1)

(Unitary patent - Decision authorising enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU - Actions for annulment on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of powers and infringement of the Treaties - Conditions laid down in Article 20 TEU and in Articles 326 TFEU and 327 TFEU - Non-exclusive competence - Decision adopted ‘as a last resort’ - Preserving the interests of the Union)

2013/C 164/05

Language of the case: Spanish and Italian

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of Kingdom of Spain: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of Italian Republic: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón, M. Balta and K. Pellinghelli, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux and T. Materne, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Kemper, Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, assisted by N.J. Travers, BL), French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents), Hungary, represented by: M. Z. Fehér and K. Molnár, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. de Ree, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, E. Gromnicka and M. Laszuk, Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, Agent, assisted by T. Mitcheson, Barrister), European Parliament (represented by: I. Díez Parra, G. Ricci and M. Dean, Agents), European Commission, (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, T. van Rijn, B. Smulders, F. Bulst and L. Prete, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53) Misuse of powers — Failure to respect the judicial system of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C-274/11; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C-274/11;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C-295/11; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C-295/11;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Polish Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament and the European Commission to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Polish Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament and the European Commission to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — L v M

(Case C-463/11) (1)

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(4) and (5) - Determination of the type of plans likely to have significant environmental effects - Building plan ‘for development within an urban area’ exempted from an environmental assessment under national legislation - Incorrect assessment of the qualitative condition of ‘inner city development’ - No effect on the legal validity of the building plan - Effectiveness of the directive undermined)

2013/C 164/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L

Defendant: M

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Article 3(4) and (5), of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Scope — National legislation providing for an accelerated procedure not including an environmental impact assessment for the adoption of development plans relating to small areas at local level which meet certain qualitative and quantitative — Incorrect assessment of the qualitative criteria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, read in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which breach of a qualitative condition, imposed by the implementing provision of that directive to exempt the adoption of a particular type of building plan from an environmental assessment under that directive, is irrelevant to the legal validity of that plan.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

(Case C-548/11) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 1(r) - Definition of ‘periods of insurance’ - Article 46 - Calculation of retirement pension - Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration - Frontier workers - Period of incapacity for work - Aggregation of similar benefits paid by two Member States - No account taken of a period of incapacity for work as a period of insurance - Residence requirement - Nation rules precluding the cumulation of benefits)

2013/C 164/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edgard Mulders

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 1(r) and 46 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Old-age and death insurance — Calculation of benefits — Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(r) and 46 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read in the light of Article 13(2)(a) of that regulation and Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU, are to be interpreted, for the purpose of calculating a retirement pension in one Member State, as precluding the legislation of another Member State under which a period of incapacity for work during which sickness insurance benefit — from which contributions were deducted by way of old-age insurance — was paid in that other Member State to a migrant worker is not regarded as a ‘period of insurance’ within the meaning of those provisions, on the ground that the person concerned is not resident in the latter State and/or was in receipt of a similar benefit under the legislation of the first Member State, which could not be combined with the sickness insurance benefit.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-565/11) (1)

(Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law - National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax - Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax - Non-compliance with European Union law - Principle of effectiveness)

2013/C 164/08

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mariana Irimie

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Sibiu — Interpretation of the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality, and of Article 6 TEU and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to restrict the amount which may be obtained by way of compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of the breach of European Union law by a Member State — Reimbursement of statutory interest relating to a tax refund

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as precluding a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the interest granted on repayment of a tax which was levied in breach of European Union law to that accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of that tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-595/11) (1)

(Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of fluorescent compact lamps - Applicability of definitive anti-dumping duties to products classed in the tariff subheading referred to in the anti-dumping regulation - Product concerned - Scope)

2013/C 164/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Steinel Vertrieb GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006 of 1 September 2006 (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1) — Applicability of those regulations to compact fluorescent lamps with a twilight switch

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines, cover all products bearing the same essential characteristics as those referred to in Article 1 of those regulations and which also fall within heading ex 8539 31 90 of the combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000. It is for the national court to assess whether that is the case for the products at issue in spite of the addition of a twilight switch, or whether the products at issue constitute different products on the ground that they bear additional characteristics which are not referred to in those regulations.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.

(Case C-12/12) (1)

(Trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 15(1) - Definition of ‘genuine use’ - Trade mark used only as one element of a composite mark or in conjunction with another mark)

2013/C 164/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Colloseum Holding AG

Respondent: Levi Strauss & Co.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Concept of ‘use of a trade mark’ — Recognition of the existence of use of a trade mark forming part of a composite mark where the composite mark is used — Recognition of the existence of use of a trade mark where it is used only together with another mark, the two marks being registered both individually and together as a composite mark

Operative part of the judgment

The condition of genuine use of a trade mark, within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, may be satisfied where a registered trade mark, which has become distinctive as a result of the use of another composite mark of which it constitutes one of the elements, is used only through that other composite mark, or where it is used only in conjunction with another mark, and the combination of those two marks is, furthermore, itself registered as a trade mark.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Meliha Veli Mustafa v Direktor na fond ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut

(Case C-247/12) (1)

(Protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Directive 2002/74/EC - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Obligation to provide a guarantee for employees’ claims - Possibility of limiting the guarantee to claims arising before the entry of the decision to open the insolvency proceedings in the register of companies - Decision to open the insolvency proceedings - Effects - Continuation of the employer’s activity)

2013/C 164/11

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meliha Veli Mustafa

Defendant: Direktor na fond ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven administrativen sad — Interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Obligation on the Member States to provide for guarantees not only for employees’ salary claims existing at the time of the opening of the insolvency proceedings of the employer but also for claims that may arise at each stage of the insolvency proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

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 not requiring the Member States to provide guarantees for employees’ claims at every stage of the insolvency proceedings of their employer. In particular, it does not preclude Member States from providing a guarantee only for employees’ claims arising before the entry of the decision to open insolvency proceedings in the register of companies, even though that decision does not order the termination of the employer’s activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 12 February 2013 — GSV Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

(Case C-74/13)

2013/C 164/12

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GSV Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | Can it be considered that a material






  — | which is white, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Can it be considered that a material

—

which is white,

| — | has a rectangular shape, |
| --- | --- |

—

has a rectangular shape,

| — | consists of a woven fabric, |
| --- | --- |

—

consists of a woven fabric,

| — | is made with a weave of twisted thread, |
| --- | --- |

—

is made with a weave of twisted thread,

| — | whose wefts are composed of two threads which, |
| --- | --- |

—

whose wefts are composed of two threads which,

| — | crossing each other, surround the warps, |
| --- | --- |

—

crossing each other, surround the warps,

| — | whose openings are 4 × 4 mm, |
| --- | --- |

—

whose openings are 4 × 4 mm,

| — | measures up to 100 cm × 201 cm, |
| --- | --- |

—

measures up to 100 cm × 201 cm,

| — | is made of glass fibres which possess a styrene acrylic copolymer plastic coating, |
| --- | --- |

—

is made of glass fibres which possess a styrene acrylic copolymer plastic coating,

| — | is not made from rovings, |
| --- | --- |

—

is not made from rovings,

| — | weighs 136 g/m2, |
| --- | --- |

—

weighs 136 g/m2,

| — | with a warp density of 415 tex, |
| --- | --- |

—

with a warp density of 415 tex,

| — | and a weft density of 132 tex, |
| --- | --- |

—

and a weft density of 132 tex,

complies with the material characteristics set out in recital 14 of the preamble and in Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 (1) of 16 February 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China, which consist of

| — | open mesh fabrics |
| --- | --- |

—

open mesh fabrics

| — | of glass fibres, |
| --- | --- |

—

of glass fibres,

| — | of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width, |
| --- | --- |

—

of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width,

| — | and weighing more than 35 g/m2, |
| --- | --- |

—

and weighing more than 35 g/m2,

and, consequently, that TARIC code 7019590010 must be interpreted so that the material described above is included as such in that TARIC code, taking into account also the tariff classification and the various linguistic versions of Community law?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can payment of the anti-dumping duty be waived, on the basis of the Community legal order, for a legal or physical person who, trusting in the wording of the Regulation published in the language corresponding to its nationality — without ascertaining potentially different meanings in other language versions — on the basis of the general and well-known understanding of the legislation in that person’s language, imports into the territory of the European Union a product manufactured outside that territory, taking into account that, according to the language version that the person knows, that product is not included in the list of goods subject to anti-dumping duty, even if it may be determined, on the basis of a comparison of the different language versions of the rule of Community law, that Community law does make the product subject to anti-dumping duty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can payment of the anti-dumping duty be waived, on the basis of the Community legal order, for a legal or physical person who, trusting in the wording of the Regulation published in the language corresponding to its nationality — without ascertaining potentially different meanings in other language versions — on the basis of the general and well-known understanding of the legislation in that person’s language, imports into the territory of the European Union a product manufactured outside that territory, taking into account that, according to the language version that the person knows, that product is not included in the list of goods subject to anti-dumping duty, even if it may be determined, on the basis of a comparison of the different language versions of the rule of Community law, that Community law does make the product subject to anti-dumping duty?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 of 16 February 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 43, p. 9).

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/8

---

Appeal brought on 1 March 2013 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11 Germany v Commission

(Case C-102/13 P)

2013/C 164/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11;

| — | declare the action admissible and refer it back to the General Court for a decision on the merits; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and refer it back to the General Court for a decision on the merits; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal has been brought against the order of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Federal Republic of Gemany for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C-7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany (Sanierungsklausel).

The Federal Government’s appeal is based on two grounds of appeal, each of which concerns a complaint as to insufficient reasoning:

| — | Breach of the principle of the efficient administration of justice, which is a special manifestation of the general legal principle of legal certainty, in that the General Court erred in its classification of the Commission’s chosen notification procedure in respect of the decision at issue, and did not establish any requirements as to the formalities to be observed in order for notification, with a form for acknowledgement of receipt, of a decision under Article 7 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) to be effective. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principle of the efficient administration of justice, which is a special manifestation of the general legal principle of legal certainty, in that the General Court erred in its classification of the Commission’s chosen notification procedure in respect of the decision at issue, and did not establish any requirements as to the formalities to be observed in order for notification, with a form for acknowledgement of receipt, of a decision under Article 7 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) to be effective.

| — | Breach of the principle of the efficient administration of justice, which is a special manifestation of the general legal principle of legal certainty, in that the General Court found that the Commission was not, in relation to the complaint of late submission of the application, required to adduce evidence of receipt of mail by an identifiable person or of the fact that the person concerned was authorised to accept notification. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principle of the efficient administration of justice, which is a special manifestation of the general legal principle of legal certainty, in that the General Court found that the Commission was not, in relation to the complaint of late submission of the application, required to adduce evidence of receipt of mail by an identifiable person or of the fact that the person concerned was authorised to accept notification.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

(Case C-119/13)

2013/C 164/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  If the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him, must the defendant respect certain time-limits in bringing his application for review? In that connection, must recourse be had in particular to the scheme established in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

If the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him, must the defendant respect certain time-limits in bringing his application for review? In that connection, must recourse be had in particular to the scheme established in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

| 3. | Also if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Also if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk

(Case C-120/13)

2013/C 164/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H.

Defendant: Tetyana Bonchyk

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

| 2. | Furthermore, if the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
  What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Furthermore, if the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.

(Case C-121/13)

2013/C 164/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft

Defendant: Xceed Holding Ltd.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
  What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/10

---

Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11 BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-126/13 P)

2013/C 164/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/1, in so far as the General Court found that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) did not infringe Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in its decision of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/1, in so far as the General Court found that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) did not infringe Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in its decision of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1);

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1), in so far as, by that decision, the Board partially rejected the registration of the mark ecoDoor on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
  in the alternative |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1), in so far as, by that decision, the Board partially rejected the registration of the mark ecoDoor on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

in the alternative

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

| — | order OHIM to pay of the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay of the costs of both instances.

Grounds of Appeal and main arguments1

This appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11, by which the General Court rejected the action brought by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1), in which the application for registration of the mark ecoDoor was partially rejected on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

The appellant basis its appeal on the following ground of appeal:

It claims that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 has been infringed since the mark ecoDoor — which is not at all descriptive of the goods rejected by OHM, but, at best, only of part of those goods, namely a door — can be regarded as descriptive of the relevant goods only if the relevant part is so important for the goods that it would be automatically associated, in trade, with them. This is the case only where, in the eyes of consumers, the relevant part plays a fundamental role in the goods. This is not the case for a door which forms part of the goods applied for, with the result that registration cannot be precluded on the basis of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---

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

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH

(Case C-132/13)

2013/C 164/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: ILME GmbH

Question referred

Are Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II, IV and III to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1) to be interpreted in such a way that housings
  as a component
  of multipole connectors for industrial purposes are
  not
  to have a ‘CE’ marking affixed to them?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-158/13)

2013/C 164/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hamidullah Rajaby

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Questions referred

| 1. | In the circumstances of the present dispute, in which there appears to be an evident infringement of European Union law which will continue to have consequences in the future, and in which, in the administrative phase, the parties exchanged views on the applicability of Article 14 of Regulation No 343/2003 (1) which they did not address again during the court proceedings, but on which the applicant also did not expressly rely during the court proceedings, is it contrary to European Union law if the court, by reason of the prohibition in national law on initiating a review of its own motion, does not address that issue? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the circumstances of the present dispute, in which there appears to be an evident infringement of European Union law which will continue to have consequences in the future, and in which, in the administrative phase, the parties exchanged views on the applicability of Article 14 of Regulation No 343/2003 (1) which they did not address again during the court proceedings, but on which the applicant also did not expressly rely during the court proceedings, is it contrary to European Union law if the court, by reason of the prohibition in national law on initiating a review of its own motion, does not address that issue?

| 2. | Do the circumstances of the present dispute constitute dependency within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, that is to say, where the family members are a young woman without any education, from Afghanistan, who is accompanied by two children currently of 51⁄2 and 3 years of age who are in her care and in relation to whose care and education she cannot rely on anyone other than her husband and father of the children, and on whose asylum application, moreover, a negative decision has been taken by the defendant because her account was considered to be wholly unbelievable, and that account can be supported by the statements of the applicant and by the (copies of the) documents which he has brought with him? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the circumstances of the present dispute constitute dependency within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, that is to say, where the family members are a young woman without any education, from Afghanistan, who is accompanied by two children currently of 51⁄2 and 3 years of age who are in her care and in relation to whose care and education she cannot rely on anyone other than her husband and father of the children, and on whose asylum application, moreover, a negative decision has been taken by the defendant because her account was considered to be wholly unbelievable, and that account can be supported by the statements of the applicant and by the (copies of the) documents which he has brought with him?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun (France) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

(Case C-166/13)

2013/C 164/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Melun

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sophie Mukarubega

Defendants: Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the right to be heard in all proceedings, which is an integral part of the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence and is furthermore enshrined by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as requiring that, where the administration intends to issue a return decision in respect of an illegally staying alien, irrespective of whether or not that return decision is taken after a refusal of a residence permit, and in particular in a situation where there is a risk of absconding, the administration must enable the interested party to present observations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the right to be heard in all proceedings, which is an integral part of the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence and is furthermore enshrined by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as requiring that, where the administration intends to issue a return decision in respect of an illegally staying alien, irrespective of whether or not that return decision is taken after a refusal of a residence permit, and in particular in a situation where there is a risk of absconding, the administration must enable the interested party to present observations?

| 2. | Does the suspensive effect of the misuse of powers proceedings before the administrative court mean that it is possible to dispense with the prior right of an illegally staying alien to make his observations known with regard to the proposed removal measure to be taken against him? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the suspensive effect of the misuse of powers proceedings before the administrative court mean that it is possible to dispense with the prior right of an illegally staying alien to make his observations known with regard to the proposed removal measure to be taken against him?

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgique) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Jean Devillers

(Case C-167/13)

2013/C 164/21

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean Devillers

Question referred

Must Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and Annex I thereto, Chapter I, entitled ‘Fitness for transport’, (1) paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which provide that in cases of doubt veterinary advice is to be sought regarding the fitness for transport of an injured animal and, more specifically, regarding the assessment of the additional suffering that the transport would cause, be interpreted as precluding Article 11(4) of the Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport, (2) which allows the transport of an injured animal only where that transport does not cause unnecessary suffering?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1).

(2)  Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport and the conditions of registration of transporters and certification of traders, starting points and assembly centres (Moniteur belge, 2 September 1999, p. 32437).

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

(Case C-189/13)

2013/C 164/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raquel Gianni Da Silva

Defendant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

Question referred

Does European Union law preclude national legislation under which illegal entry by a third-country national who has not been subjected to the coercive measures provided for in Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment? (1)

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/12

---

Action brought on 17 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-203/13)

2013/C 164/23

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Heller and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 3(7) of, and the second subparagraph of point 1(a), and points 1(b), (c), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to, Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of such provisions, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 3(7) of, and the second subparagraph of point 1(a), and points 1(b), (c), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to, Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of such provisions, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;

| — | impose on the Republic of Bulgaria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures transposing Directive 2009/72/EC at the daily rate of EUR 8 448 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Republic of Bulgaria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures transposing Directive 2009/72/EC at the daily rate of EUR 8 448 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

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

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the adoption of measures to transpose the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

---

General Court

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-32/08) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Market analysis in view of developing a new approach for a website - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Selection criteria and award criteria - Non-contractual liability)

2013/C 164/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis, and subsequently by M. Roli and M. Stavropoulous, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with the call for tenders for a market analysis in view of developing a new approach for the ‘Environment for Young Europeans’ website and, secondly, for compensation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatamiand Others v Commission

(Case T-526/10) (1)

(Trade in seal products - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Detailed rules for implementation - Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 - Prohibition on placing such products on the market - Exception in favour of Inuit communities - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Subsidiarity - Proportionality - Misuse of powers)

2013/C 164/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada); Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada); Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association (Pangnirtung, Canada); Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq); Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq); Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq); David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada); Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada); Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec, Canada); Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc. (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada); Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa); NuTan Furs, Inc. (Catalina, Canada); GC Rieber Skinn AS (Bergen, Norway); Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland) (Nuuk, Groenland, Denmark); Johannes Egede (Nuuk); Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk); William E. Scott & Son (Edinburgh, United Kingdom), Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (Cap-aux-Meules); Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diș Ticaret Ltd Șirketi (Istanbul, Turkey); Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society, Ltd (Fleur de Lys, Canada) (represented by J. Bouckaert and H. Viaene, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, P. Oliver and K. Mifsud Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant before the General Court: European Parliament (represented: initially by I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, and subsequently by L. Visaggio and D. Gauci, acting as Agents); and by the Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010, laying the detailed rules of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sale of seal products (OJ L 216, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Ms Karliin Aariak, the Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs, Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diș Ticaret Ltd Șirketi and Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society, Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Ms Karliin Aariak, the Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs, Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diș Ticaret Ltd Șirketi and Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society, Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gbagbo v Council

(Case T-119/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Alteration of heads of claim - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of power - Rights of the defence - Right to property)

2013/C 164/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Simone Gbagbo (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, agents) and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, J.-P. Benoit and G. Merland, lawyers)

Re:

Initially, an application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending 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 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mrs Simone Gbagbo to bear her own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Simone Gbagbo to bear her own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gossio v Council

(Case T-130/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 164/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented: initially by G. Collard then S. Zokou, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, agents) and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, J.-P. Benoit and G. Merland, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending 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 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Marcel Gossio to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Marcel Gossio to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST)

(Case T-284/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark METROINVEST - Earlier national figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Principle of non-discrimination - Right to a fair hearing)

2013/C 164/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, P. Craddock and B. Vanbrabant, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Berger, R. Kaase and J. C. Plate, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2011 (Case R 954/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning device)

(Case T-55/12) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cleaning device - Community three-dimensional mark representing a cleaning device fitted with a spraying device and a sponge - Declaration of invalidity)

2013/C 164/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Su-Shan Chen (Sanchong, Taiwan) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: AM Denmark A/S (Kokkedal, Denmark) (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2011 (Case R 2179/2010-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between AM Denmark A/S and Su-Shan Chen

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Su-Shan Chen to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Su-Shan Chen to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v OHIM (ECO PRO)

(Case T-145/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark ECO PRO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 164/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 January 2012 (Case R 1418/2011-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word sign ECO PRO

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/17

---

Order of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)

(Case T-474/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Annulment of the opposing trade mark - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 164/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG (Cochem, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Viñedos Emiliana, SA (Las Condes, Santiago, Chili)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2011 (Case R 637/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG and Viñedos Emiliana, SA.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The applicant and OHIM shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and OHIM shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/17

---

Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council

(Case T-28/12) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Adoption of a new regulation - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 164/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals (Kabil-Batam, Indonesia); Ecogreen Oleochemials (Singapore) Pte Ltd, (Singapore, Singapore); and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH (Dessau-Roβlau, Germany) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch and N. Chesaites, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1), in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals, Ecogreen Oleochemials (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals, Ecogreen Oleochemials (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH.

| 4. | Sasol Olefins & Surfactants and Sasol Germany shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Sasol Olefins & Surfactants and Sasol Germany shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/18

---

Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-124/13)

2013/C 164/33

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/125/12 for establishing a reserve list with 110 places for the purposes of filling vacant Assistant (AST 3) posts in the fields of audit, finance/accounting, and economics/statistics; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/125/12 for establishing a reserve list with 110 places for the purposes of filling vacant Assistant (AST 3) posts in the fields of audit, finance/accounting, and economics/statistics;

| — | annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/126/12 for establishing a reserve list with 78 places for the purposes of filling vacant Assistant (AST 3) posts in the fields of biology, life and health sciences, chemistry, physics and materials science, nuclear research, civil and mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering and electronics; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/126/12 for establishing a reserve list with 78 places for the purposes of filling vacant Assistant (AST 3) posts in the fields of biology, life and health sciences, chemistry, physics and materials science, nuclear research, civil and mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering and electronics;

| — | annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/248/13 for establishing a reserve list with 29 places for the purposes of filling vacant Administrator (AD 6) posts in the fields of security of buildings and building services engineering; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/248/13 for establishing a reserve list with 29 places for the purposes of filling vacant Administrator (AD 6) posts in the fields of security of buildings and building services engineering;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU.






  — | According to the applicant, the Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P [Italy v Commission [2012] ECR I-0000], which finds that it is unlawful for notices of European Union open competitions to limit — to English, French and German — the languages which candidates can indicate as their second language. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU.

—

According to the applicant, the Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P [Italy v Commission [2012] ECR I-0000], which finds that it is unlawful for notices of European Union open competitions to limit — to English, French and German — the languages which candidates can indicate as their second language.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community.






  — | In that regard, the applicant claims that, by limiting to three the number of languages which may be eligible as the second language of candidates in European Union open competitions, the Commission has in practice established a new rule in relation to the languages of the institutions, thereby encroaching upon the Council’s exclusive competence in that area. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community.

—

In that regard, the applicant claims that, by limiting to three the number of languages which may be eligible as the second language of candidates in European Union open competitions, the Commission has in practice established a new rule in relation to the languages of the institutions, thereby encroaching upon the Council’s exclusive competence in that area.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of: Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 6(3) EU; Articles 1(2) and 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27(2) and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.






  — | In the applicant’s view, the linguistic restriction imposed by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit a body from imposing on EU citizens or officials of the institutions linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit a body from introducing such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of: Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 6(3) EU; Articles 1(2) and 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27(2) and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

—

In the applicant’s view, the linguistic restriction imposed by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit a body from imposing on EU citizens or officials of the institutions linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit a body from introducing such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) EU, in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.






  — | According to the applicant, the Commission has frustrated EU citizens’ expectations of being able to choose any language of the European Union as their second language, as was always the case up until 2007 and as was authoritatively confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) EU, in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

—

According to the applicant, the Commission has frustrated EU citizens’ expectations of being able to choose any language of the European Union as their second language, as was always the case up until 2007 and as was authoritatively confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices (in particular, Articles 1d(1) and (6), 28(f) 27(2), 34(3) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations), and a breach of the principle of proportionality.






  — | According to the applicant, by restricting, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language to three, the Commission has effectively placed the assessment of the candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — before the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages, rather than his professional knowledge, becomes a decisive factor. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices (in particular, Articles 1d(1) and (6), 28(f) 27(2), 34(3) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations), and a breach of the principle of proportionality.

—

According to the applicant, by restricting, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language to three, the Commission has effectively placed the assessment of the candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — before the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages, rather than his professional knowledge, becomes a decisive factor.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of: Article 18 and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58; and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.






  — | On that point, the applicant claims that, by making it compulsory for applications to be submitted in English, French or German and for any communications sent to candidates by EPSO regarding developments in the competition to be written in one of those languages, the right of EU citizens to interact with the institutions in their own language has been breached, and further discrimination against those citizens not having a thorough knowledge of those three languages has been created. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of: Article 18 and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58; and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.

—

On that point, the applicant claims that, by making it compulsory for applications to be submitted in English, French or German and for any communications sent to candidates by EPSO regarding developments in the competition to be written in one of those languages, the right of EU citizens to interact with the institutions in their own language has been breached, and further discrimination against those citizens not having a thorough knowledge of those three languages has been created.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), breach of the principle of proportionality, and misrepresentation of the facts.






  — | The applicant claims that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable of communication within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That reasoning misrepresents the facts because those three languages are not the languages used most often for the purposes of communicating between different linguistic groups within the institutions; it is also a disproportionate restriction of the fundamental right not to suffer linguistic discrimination. In reality, less restrictive systems exist for ensuring effective communication within the institutions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), breach of the principle of proportionality, and misrepresentation of the facts.

—

The applicant claims that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable of communication within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That reasoning misrepresents the facts because those three languages are not the languages used most often for the purposes of communicating between different linguistic groups within the institutions; it is also a disproportionate restriction of the fundamental right not to suffer linguistic discrimination. In reality, less restrictive systems exist for ensuring effective communication within the institutions.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/19

---

Appeal brought on 25 March 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11, BO v Commission

(Case T-174/13 P)

2013/C 164/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: BO (Amman, Jordan)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11 BO v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11 BO v Commission;

| — | dismiss the action brought by BO in Case F-27/11, ordering him to pay the costs of those proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought by BO in Case F-27/11, ordering him to pay the costs of those proceedings;

| — | decide that each of the parties are to bear their own costs relating to the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

decide that each of the parties are to bear their own costs relating to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 19 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of disease and of point 2.5 of Chapter 12, entitled ‘Transport costs’, of Title II of the Commission Decision of 2 July 2007 laying down general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the CST failed to have regard to the strict nature of the exclusion of reimbursement of transport costs laid down by that latter provision.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/19

---

Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Moallem Insurance v Council

(Case T-182/13)

2013/C 164/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Moallem Insurance Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71);

| — | Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55);

| — | Declare Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (1) and Article 35 of Council Regulation 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2) inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (1) and Article 35 of Council Regulation 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2) inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | Order that the Council pay the Applicant’s costs of this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Council pay the Applicant’s costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction to review both paragraph 21, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP and paragraph 21, section B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as well as the decision of 28 October 2010 and their conformity with the general principles of European law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction to review both paragraph 21, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP and paragraph 21, section B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as well as the decision of 28 October 2010 and their conformity with the general principles of European law.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the specific reason for the listing of Moallem is wrong and the requirements of Article 20.1 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as subsequently amended by Article 1.7 of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, Article 1.8 of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 25 October 2012 and Article 1.2 of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012), and the requirements of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (as subsequently amended by Article 1.11 of Council Regulation 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012) are not met. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the specific reason for the listing of Moallem is wrong and the requirements of Article 20.1 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as subsequently amended by Article 1.7 of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, Article 1.8 of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 25 October 2012 and Article 1.2 of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012), and the requirements of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (as subsequently amended by Article 1.11 of Council Regulation 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012) are not met.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December are not sufficiently motivated. They violate Moallem’s rights of defence and its right to have a fair hearing since the Council never responded to Moallem’s letter of 6 February 2013 and Moallem was not granted access to the Council’s file. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December are not sufficiently motivated. They violate Moallem’s rights of defence and its right to have a fair hearing since the Council never responded to Moallem’s letter of 6 February 2013 and Moallem was not granted access to the Council’s file.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated articles 24.3 and 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Articles 46.3 and 46.4 of Council Regulation 267/2012. Articles 24.3 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 require the Council to communicate and notify its decision including the grounds for listing, and Articles 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 provide for the review of the decision when observations are submitted. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated articles 24.3 and 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Articles 46.3 and 46.4 of Council Regulation 267/2012. Articles 24.3 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 require the Council to communicate and notify its decision including the grounds for listing, and Articles 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 provide for the review of the decision when observations are submitted.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of sound administration.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Article 35 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 should not apply to Moallem insofar as they violate the principle of proportionality set forth in Article 5.4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Article 35 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 should not apply to Moallem insofar as they violate the principle of proportionality set forth in Article 5.4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, as subsequently amended, on the basis of which the contested Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 was adopted, violates Article 215, par. 2 and 3 TFEU as its legal basis, as well as Article 40 TEU. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, as subsequently amended, on the basis of which the contested Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 was adopted, violates Article 215, par. 2 and 3 TFEU as its legal basis, as well as Article 40 TEU.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were adopted in violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were adopted in violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/20

---

Action brought on 3 April 2013 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission

(Case T-189/13)

2013/C 164/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Ambrosius, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Implementing Decision of the European Commission C(2013) 369 final of 21 January 2013 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for the medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘tolperisone’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Implementing Decision of the European Commission C(2013) 369 final of 21 January 2013 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for the medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘tolperisone’;

| — | In the alternative, annul the Implementing Decision of the European Commission C(2013) 369 final of 21 January 2013 to the extent that it requires the Member States to remove the therapeutic indication ‘painful muscle spasms particularly as a result of diseases of the spine and paraxial joints’ of the authorisations for tolperisone in oral formulation and to amend the authorisations accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the Implementing Decision of the European Commission C(2013) 369 final of 21 January 2013 to the extent that it requires the Member States to remove the therapeutic indication ‘painful muscle spasms particularly as a result of diseases of the spine and paraxial joints’ of the authorisations for tolperisone in oral formulation and to amend the authorisations accordingly;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)

  In this context it is claimed inter alia that the contested decision is based on an incorrect assessment of the criterion of lack of therapeutic efficacy. In addition the applicant argues that the wrong criteria were used when making the benefit-risk assessment of tolperisone in oral formulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)

In this context it is claimed inter alia that the contested decision is based on an incorrect assessment of the criterion of lack of therapeutic efficacy. In addition the applicant argues that the wrong criteria were used when making the benefit-risk assessment of tolperisone in oral formulation.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 10a of and Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC
  The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision fails to take into account the criteria contained in Article 10a of and Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC in the evaluation of efficacy and safety and in its benefit-risk assessment. To that extent too the contested decision is based according to the applicant on the use of incorrect standards of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 10a of and Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC

The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision fails to take into account the criteria contained in Article 10a of and Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC in the evaluation of efficacy and safety and in its benefit-risk assessment. To that extent too the contested decision is based according to the applicant on the use of incorrect standards of assessment.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 22a(1)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC
  The applicant claims in the context of this third plea that, instead of amending the authorisations affected with immediate effect, an efficacy study within the meaning of Article 22(a)(1)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC should have been ordered as a less intrusive measure. The applicant claims that the Commission did not address this possibility with sufficient rigour and that it was rejected by the scientific committee for medicinal products for human use of the EMA [European Medicines Agency] on grounds which are not legally sound. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 22a(1)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC

The applicant claims in the context of this third plea that, instead of amending the authorisations affected with immediate effect, an efficacy study within the meaning of Article 22(a)(1)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC should have been ordered as a less intrusive measure. The applicant claims that the Commission did not address this possibility with sufficient rigour and that it was rejected by the scientific committee for medicinal products for human use of the EMA [European Medicines Agency] on grounds which are not legally sound.

---

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

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/21

---

Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Rubinum SA v Commission

(Case T-201/13)

2013/C 164/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rubinum SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims in essence as follows:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 (1)

  The applicant argues in this connection that the contested Regulation is based in particular on Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003 and that the requirements of that provision are not satisfied in the present case. It refers in particular to the fact that the contested Regulation is based only on assumptions and that in fact neither the transfer of antibiotic resistance nor the production of toxins could actually be established. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 (1)

The applicant argues in this connection that the contested Regulation is based in particular on Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003 and that the requirements of that provision are not satisfied in the present case. It refers in particular to the fact that the contested Regulation is based only on assumptions and that in fact neither the transfer of antibiotic resistance nor the production of toxins could actually be established.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1831/2003
  Here, the applicant claims that the Commission should have decided, pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1831/2003, on the applicant’s application made under Article 10(2) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 1831/2003. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1831/2003

Here, the applicant claims that the Commission should have decided, pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1831/2003, on the applicant’s application made under Article 10(2) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 1831/2003.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003
  The applicant claims in this regard that it had proved appropriately and sufficiently in various authorisation procedures that the feed additive produced by it did not in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003 have an adverse effect on human or animal health or on the environment. Furthermore, evidence to the contrary was not forthcoming either from the Commission or the EFSA [European Food Safety Authority]. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003

The applicant claims in this regard that it had proved appropriately and sufficiently in various authorisation procedures that the feed additive produced by it did not in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003 have an adverse effect on human or animal health or on the environment. Furthermore, evidence to the contrary was not forthcoming either from the Commission or the EFSA [European Food Safety Authority].

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2)

  On this point the applicant claims in essence that the contested Regulation is not based on a proper or full risk analysis. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2)

On this point the applicant claims in essence that the contested Regulation is not based on a proper or full risk analysis.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002
  The applicant argues in this connection inter alia that the Commission also cannot justify the contested Regulation with reference to the precautionary principle in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 178/2002. It argues further that even taking the precautionary principle into account the contested Regulation does not comply with the requirements of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002

The applicant argues in this connection inter alia that the Commission also cannot justify the contested Regulation with reference to the precautionary principle in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 178/2002. It argues further that even taking the precautionary principle into account the contested Regulation does not comply with the requirements of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of European Union law
  The applicant in this context claims an infringement of the right to a hearing, the right to fair proceedings and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of European Union law

The applicant in this context claims an infringement of the right to a hearing, the right to fair proceedings and the principle of proportionality.

| 7. | Infringement of Article 19 of Regulation No 1831/2003
  It is claimed in this regard that the Commission failed to respect the two-month period laid down in Article 19 of Regulation No 1831/2003 within which a decision taken by the EFSA or a failure by it to exercise its powers may be reviewed and that it decided on the applicant’s application for review of an opinion of the EFSA only after adoption of the contested Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Infringement of Article 19 of Regulation No 1831/2003

It is claimed in this regard that the Commission failed to respect the two-month period laid down in Article 19 of Regulation No 1831/2003 within which a decision taken by the EFSA or a failure by it to exercise its powers may be reviewed and that it decided on the applicant’s application for review of an opinion of the EFSA only after adoption of the contested Regulation.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 29).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/22

---

Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Portugal Telecom v Commission

(Case T-208/13)

2013/C 164/38

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz and R. Bordalo Junqueiro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision C(2013) 306, and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C(2013) 306, and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Commission’s decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Commission’s decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It was found in the contested decision that Portugal Telecom and Telefónica S.A. infringed Article 101 TFEU in inserting a clause 9 in the agreement by which Telefónica S.A acquired a block of shares from Portugal Telecom in Brasilcel NV. The Commission interpreted that clause as a no-competition agreement independent of the transaction at issue.

In support of its action, Portugal Telecom relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of essential procedural requirements:






  — | The applicant considers that the decision is erroneous, since the grounds thereof contain omissions, imprecisions and errors in essential areas, which adversely affect the form of order which the applicant seeks; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of essential procedural requirements:

—

The applicant considers that the decision is erroneous, since the grounds thereof contain omissions, imprecisions and errors in essential areas, which adversely affect the form of order which the applicant seeks;

| — | The applicant further considers that the decision is based on insufficient evidence, in so far as the Commission does not furnish any evidence to weaken the evidence furnished by the applicant and from which it results that Clause 9 of the agreement contains a no-competition agreement which, given the circumstances in which it came into being, could not be relied on without the prior authorisation of both parties; |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further considers that the decision is based on insufficient evidence, in so far as the Commission does not furnish any evidence to weaken the evidence furnished by the applicant and from which it results that Clause 9 of the agreement contains a no-competition agreement which, given the circumstances in which it came into being, could not be relied on without the prior authorisation of both parties;

| — | Moreover, the applicant considers that Clause 9 of the agreement cannot be classed as a restriction by object and that the Commission failed to show, as it was required to do, the existence of actual or potential restrictive effects which could constitute an infringement of the rules on competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, the applicant considers that Clause 9 of the agreement cannot be classed as a restriction by object and that the Commission failed to show, as it was required to do, the existence of actual or potential restrictive effects which could constitute an infringement of the rules on competition.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Treaty and of the law relating to its application:






  — | The applicant claims that the Commission’s decision infringes European Union law in the following ways:






  (a) | It contains a manifest error in relation to the facts, the evidence and the adequacy of the evidence, in so far as the Commission wrongly assessed and interpreted the information submitted by the parties to the proceedings and, consequently, failed to draw the most plausible conclusions from the evidence before it; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Treaty and of the law relating to its application:

—

The applicant claims that the Commission’s decision infringes European Union law in the following ways:

(a)

It contains a manifest error in relation to the facts, the evidence and the adequacy of the evidence, in so far as the Commission wrongly assessed and interpreted the information submitted by the parties to the proceedings and, consequently, failed to draw the most plausible conclusions from the evidence before it;

| (b) | It erroneously interprets Article 101 TFEU and thus infringes that provision, to the extent that the Commission wrongly and with no basis classed the parties as potential competitors in general on the markets allegedly covered by the no-competition agreement; that clause could not be qualified as a restriction by object without the Commission showing that any effects had been produced; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

It erroneously interprets Article 101 TFEU and thus infringes that provision, to the extent that the Commission wrongly and with no basis classed the parties as potential competitors in general on the markets allegedly covered by the no-competition agreement; that clause could not be qualified as a restriction by object without the Commission showing that any effects had been produced;

| (c) | It infringes the duty to investigate and to give a ruling, in so far as the decision fails to evaluate or refute a series of relevant arguments submitted by the parties, in particular, in relation to the scope of the no-competition agreement; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

It infringes the duty to investigate and to give a ruling, in so far as the decision fails to evaluate or refute a series of relevant arguments submitted by the parties, in particular, in relation to the scope of the no-competition agreement;

| (d) | It infringes the principle in dubio pro reo, in that the Commission deems certain facts which are unfavorable to the applicant to have been established, and in relation to which significant doubts exist and in respect of which the Commission itself is uncertain; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

It infringes the principle in dubio pro reo, in that the Commission deems certain facts which are unfavorable to the applicant to have been established, and in relation to which significant doubts exist and in respect of which the Commission itself is uncertain;

| (e) | It infringes the principles by which the Commission is bound when imposing fines, as set out in paragraph 13 of the Guidelines which exist in that area, in so far as the Commission calculated the fine in relation to electronic communications markets in general, whether situated in the Iberian Peninsula or not, and also ignored the fact that, in any event, the alleged infringement did not continue after 29 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

It infringes the principles by which the Commission is bound when imposing fines, as set out in paragraph 13 of the Guidelines which exist in that area, in so far as the Commission calculated the fine in relation to electronic communications markets in general, whether situated in the Iberian Peninsula or not, and also ignored the fact that, in any event, the alleged infringement did not continue after 29 October 2010;

| (f) | It infringes the principle of proportionality, given the circumstances of the case and the criteria which must be observed when imposing fines. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

It infringes the principle of proportionality, given the circumstances of the case and the criteria which must be observed when imposing fines.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/23

---

Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Ferracci v Commission

(Case T-219/13)

2013/C 164/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pietro Ferracci (San Cesareo, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 19 December 2012, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 19 December 2012, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action contests Commission Decision C(2012) 9461 final of 19 December 2012 declaring the aid granted, on the basis of the exemption from the municipal tax on real estate (ICI), to non-commercial entities for the pursuit of certain activities to be incompatible with the common market, without ordering the recovery of that aid, and declaring that the favourable treatment granted to the Church and to some sports clubs through Article 149 of the Testo unico delle imposte sul reddito (TUIR) (Codified Law on Income Tax), as well as the exemption from the IMU (Imposta Municipale Propria: the Municipality’s own tax) granted to some entities for the pursuit of specific activities, does not constitute State aid.

In support of his action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement, misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that, despite taking the view that Articles 107 and 108 TFEU had been infringed, the Commission did not order the recovery of the State aid mentioned above. In that regard, the applicant argues that there are no exceptional circumstances which would make recovery of the aid completely impossible and, in any event, it has not been proved that recovery would be completely impossible. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement, misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that, despite taking the view that Articles 107 and 108 TFEU had been infringed, the Commission did not order the recovery of the State aid mentioned above. In that regard, the applicant argues that there are no exceptional circumstances which would make recovery of the aid completely impossible and, in any event, it has not been proved that recovery would be completely impossible.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid measure implemented by the Italian Republic through Article 149(4) of the TUIR does not amount to a case of State aid for the purposes of the TFEU. In particular, the Commission found that there was no selective advantage; the applicant, by contrast, maintains that the legislation in question does confer a selective advantage upon ecclesiastic institutions recognised in civil law and amateur sports clubs and also meets all the other conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU for the existence of State aid. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid measure implemented by the Italian Republic through Article 149(4) of the TUIR does not amount to a case of State aid for the purposes of the TFEU. In particular, the Commission found that there was no selective advantage; the applicant, by contrast, maintains that the legislation in question does confer a selective advantage upon ecclesiastic institutions recognised in civil law and amateur sports clubs and also meets all the other conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU for the existence of State aid.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid measure implemented by the Italian Republic through the ‘IMU Exemption’ does not amount to a case of State aid for the purposes of the TFEU. In particular, the Commission found that the beneficiaries of the IMU Exemption are not ‘undertakings’. The applicant, by contrast, maintains that those beneficiaries are ‘undertakings’ as defined in Community law and that all the conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU for the existence of State aid are met. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid measure implemented by the Italian Republic through the ‘IMU Exemption’ does not amount to a case of State aid for the purposes of the TFEU. In particular, the Commission found that the beneficiaries of the IMU Exemption are not ‘undertakings’. The applicant, by contrast, maintains that those beneficiaries are ‘undertakings’ as defined in Community law and that all the conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU for the existence of State aid are met.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU.






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision must be annulled in view of the inadequate statement of reasons provided therein in relation to all the pleas set out above, in infringement of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision must be annulled in view of the inadequate statement of reasons provided therein in relation to all the pleas set out above, in infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/24

---

Action brought on 15 April 2013 — B&S Europe v Commission

(Case T-222/13)

2013/C 164/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Business and Strategies in Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Bihain, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment admissible and well founded and, consequently, annul the contested act; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment admissible and well founded and, consequently, annul the contested act;

| — | therefore, order the European Commission to admit the applicant to the short-list of candidates invited to participate in the tendering procedure in the framework of contract EuropeAid/132633/C/SER/multi, lot No 7: Governance and home affairs; |
| --- | --- |

—

therefore, order the European Commission to admit the applicant to the short-list of candidates invited to participate in the tendering procedure in the framework of contract EuropeAid/132633/C/SER/multi, lot No 7: Governance and home affairs;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons, of the principle of good administration, in particular in that it imposes a duty of consistency, of the principle of audi alteram partem, and an infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations and of the principle of fairness when the Commission, on the first occasion, in its letter of 2 April 2013 following its decision of 15 February 2013, rejected as non-eligible project No 25, proposed by the applicant to fulfil the technical capacity criterion, thus bringing the number of projects eligible as reference projects below the minimum necessary. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons, of the principle of good administration, in particular in that it imposes a duty of consistency, of the principle of audi alteram partem, and an infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations and of the principle of fairness when the Commission, on the first occasion, in its letter of 2 April 2013 following its decision of 15 February 2013, rejected as non-eligible project No 25, proposed by the applicant to fulfil the technical capacity criterion, thus bringing the number of projects eligible as reference projects below the minimum necessary.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of point 2.4.11.1.3, second subparagraph, of the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions, and of clarification A 47 of the procurement notice, as the Commission incorrectly interpreted the concept of reference projects eligible to fulfil the selection criterion concerning the technical capacity of the candidate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of point 2.4.11.1.3, second subparagraph, of the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions, and of clarification A 47 of the procurement notice, as the Commission incorrectly interpreted the concept of reference projects eligible to fulfil the selection criterion concerning the technical capacity of the candidate.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/24

---

Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste v Commission

(Case T-353/08) (1)

2013/C 164/41

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/25

---

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

(Case T-520/10) (1)

2013/C 164/42

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

---

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/25

---

Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (SANISSIMO)

(Case T-485/12) (1)

2013/C 164/43

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---