# Official Journal C 38/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.038.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 38 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 569 February 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.038.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 38

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 569 February 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 038/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 32, 2.2.2013 | 1 |
| 2013/C 038/02 | Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 December 2012 concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2013/C 038/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 32, 2.2.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

2013/C 038/02

Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 December 2012 concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions

2

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 038/03 | Case C-610/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Preliminary objection of inadmissibility — Article 228(2) EC and Article 260(2) TFEU — Failure to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties) | 5 |
| 2013/C 038/04 | Case C-215/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Iwona Szyrocka v SiGer Technologie GmbH (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Application for an order which does not comply with the formal requirements laid down by national law — Exhaustive nature of the requirements to be met by the application — Whether it is possible to claim the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal) | 5 |
| 2013/C 038/05 | Case C-226/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others (Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Appreciable restriction — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 3(2) — National competition authority — Practices which may affect trade between Member States — Proceedings and penalty — Market share thresholds of the de minimis notice not attained — Restrictions by object) | 6 |
| 2013/C 038/06 | Joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — French Republic v European Parliament (Actions for annulment — Law governing the institutions — Calendar of plenary part-sessions of the European Parliament for 2012 and 2013 — Protocols on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union) | 7 |
| 2013/C 038/07 | Case C-379/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Caves Krier Frères SARL v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Subsidy for the recruitment of older unemployed persons and the long-term unemployed — Condition of registration with a placement office of the national employment administration — Residence condition — Restriction — Justification) | 7 |
| 2013/C 038/08 | Case C-395/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Decision 2004/290/EC — Manner in which a Member State applies a derogating measure — Authorisation — Article 2, point (1) — Construction work — Interpretation — Supplies of goods covered — Possibility for the derogating measure to be applied only in part — Restrictions) | 8 |
| 2013/C 038/09 | Case C-465/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Forposta SA, ABC Direct Contact sp. z o.o. v Poczta Polska SA (Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2), first subparagraph, point (d) — Directive 2004/17/EC — Articles 53(3) and 54(4) — Public procurement — Postal services sector — Exclusion criteria in relation to the procedure for the award of a contract — Grave professional misconduct — Protection of the public interest — Maintenance of fair competition) | 8 |
| 2013/C 038/10 | Case C-670/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Vinifrance SA (Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Articles 4 and 5 — Administrative penalty — Administrative measure — Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 — Aid for the private storage of concentrated grape must — Community origin — Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 — Long-term storage contract — Article 2(2) — Article 17(1)(b) — Reduction of the amount of aid in relation to the seriousness of the breach committed) | 9 |
| 2013/C 038/11 | Case C-11/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system — Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules — Vicarious liability) | 10 |
| 2013/C 038/12 | Case C-1/11 SA: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union) | 10 |
| 2013/C 038/13 | Case C-529/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2012 — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG | 11 |
| 2013/C 038/14 | Case C-537/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 1 de Catarroja (Spain) lodged on 26 November 2012 — Banco Popular Español S.A. v Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo and Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez | 11 |
| 2013/C 038/15 | Case C-546/12 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2012 by Ralf Schräder against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 18 September 2012 in Joined Cases T-133/08, T-134/08, T-177/08 and T-242/09 Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office | 12 |
| 2013/C 038/16 | Case C-556/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 3 December 2012 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet | 13 |
| 2013/C 038/17 | Case C-561/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium | 13 |
| 2013/C 038/18 | Case C-562/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee | 14 |
| 2013/C 038/19 | Case C-564/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA and Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti | 14 |
| 2013/C 038/20 | Case C-565/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA v Fesih Kalhan | 15 |
| 2013/C 038/21 | Case C-571/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 6 December 2012 — SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 15 |
| 2013/C 038/22 | Case C-572/12: Action brought on 6 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands | 15 |
| 2013/C 038/23 | Case C-573/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 6 December 2012 — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten | 16 |
| 2013/C 038/24 | Case C-575/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 December 2012 — AS Air Baltic Corporation v Valsts robežsardze | 16 |
| 2013/C 038/25 | Case C-51/11: Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH | 17 |
| 2013/C 038/26 | Joined Cases C-33/12 and C-38/12: Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság — (Hungary)) — Körös-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-33/12), Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-38/12) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve | 17 |
| 2013/C 038/27 | Case C-98/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Wim JJ Slot v 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH | 17 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 038/28 | Case T-103/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Versalis and Eni v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Chloroprene rubber market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Rights of the defence — Evidence of involvement in the agreement — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Repeat offending — Deterrence — Attenuating circumstances — Maximum turnover limit of 10 % — Cooperation — 2002 Leniency Notice — Equal treatment — Proportionality) | 18 |
| 2013/C 038/29 | Case T-34/10: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MAGIC LIGHT — Earlier national word mark MAGIC LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 18 |
| 2013/C 038/30 | Case T-588/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Arable crops — Dried grapes — Raw tobacco — Specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products — Sheepmeat and goatmeat — Cross compliance — Proportionality) | 18 |
| 2013/C 038/31 | Case T-136/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (pelican) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark pelikan — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the applicant — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 19 |
| 2013/C 038/32 | Joined Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Commission v Strack (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Access to documents — Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — No act adversely affecting an official — Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure) | 19 |
| 2013/C 038/33 | Case T-199/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Strack v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Application for authorisation to disclose documents — Application for authorisation to publish a text — Application for authorisation to use findings before national judicial authorities — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — No act adversely affecting an official — Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure) | 20 |
| 2013/C 038/34 | Case T-357/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark GRUPO BIMBO — Earlier national word mark BIMBO — Relative ground for refusal — Mark with a reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 20 |
| 2013/C 038/35 | Case T-461/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Ménard (natura) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark natura — Prior Community word mark NATURA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 20 |
| 2013/C 038/36 | Case T-595/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — A v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Social security — Occupational disease — Total permanent invalidity — Access to the personal file — Reimbursement of travel expenses — Claim for damages) | 21 |
| 2013/C 038/37 | Case T-231/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Adriatica di Navigazione and Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 21 |
| 2013/C 038/38 | Case T-253/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Bauer v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 22 |
| 2013/C 038/39 | Case T-260/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 22 |
| 2013/C 038/40 | Case T-261/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Sacaim and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 23 |
| 2013/C 038/41 | Case T-463/11: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 23 |
| 2013/C 038/42 | Case T-584/11: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2012 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate) | 24 |
| 2013/C 038/43 | Case T-641/11 P: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Mische v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade and step — Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials — Recruitment by the Parliament and simultaneous transfer to the Commission — No need to adjudicate in part — Appeal in part clearly unfounded) | 24 |
| 2013/C 038/44 | Case T-464/12 P (R): Order of the General Court of 3 December 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Order made at first instance in interim proceedings rejecting an application for suspension of operation of the contested decision — Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of sums which he claims were unjustly deducted from his allowance) | 25 |
| 2013/C 038/45 | Case T-511/12: Action brought on 12 November 2012 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Fronsac SW and Sixty International (Refrigue for cold) | 25 |
| 2013/C 038/46 | Case T-536/12: Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa) | 25 |
| 2013/C 038/47 | Case T-538/12: Action brought on 13 December 2012 — Optilingua holding SA v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD) | 26 |
| 2013/C 038/48 | Case T-424/11: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Cementos Molins v Commission | 26 |
| 2013/C 038/49 | Case T-32/12: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina) | 27 |
| 2013/C 038/50 | Case T-90/12: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Elegant Target Development and Others v Council | 27 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2013/C 038/51 | Case F-52/05 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Q v Commission (Civil service — Referral back to Tribunal after setting aside — Administration’s duty to provide assistance — Psychological harassment — Provisional removal from post — Reparation for non-material damage — Career development reviews — Justified absences on the ground of sickness — Failure to take into account) | 28 |
| 2013/C 038/52 | Case F-41/06 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Invalidity — Retirement on the grounds of invalidity — Composition of the Invalidity Committee — Validity — Conditions) | 28 |
| 2013/C 038/53 | Case F-88/09 and F-48/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Z v Court of Justice (Civil service — Officials — Reassignment — Interests of the service — General rule of correspondence between the grade and the post — Rights of the defence — Psychological harassment — Article 12 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of care — Principle of sound administration — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Written warning — Rights of the defence and principle of the right to be heard) | 29 |
| 2013/C 038/54 | Case F-43/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Maria Concetta Cerafogli v ECB (Civil service — Staff of the ECB — Complaint of psychological harassment — Administrative inquiry — Access to the file of the inquiry — Report on the inquiry — Manifest error of assessment) | 29 |
| 2013/C 038/55 | Case F-112/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Trentea v FRA (Civil service — FRA staff — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Rejection of an application) | 29 |
| 2013/C 038/56 | Case F-118/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Psarras v ENISA (Civil Service — Assignment — Reassignment — Interest of the service — Leave on personal grounds) | 30 |
| 2013/C 038/57 | Case F-2/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — BW v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Probationary official — Not established at the end of the probationary period — Statement of reasons on which the decision to dismiss a probationary official is based — Rights of the defence) | 30 |
| 2013/C 038/58 | Case F-76/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Grazyte v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Ten-year reference period — Starting point — Expiry point — Periods of service for an international organisation disregarded — Application by analogy with the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation) | 31 |
| 2013/C 038/59 | Case F-77/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Van Neyghem v Council (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Promotion year 2007 — Refusal of promotion — Annulment — Implementing measures — Fresh comparative examination of the merits) | 31 |
| 2013/C 038/60 | Case F-110/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Lebedef and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Article 64 of the Staff Regulations — First subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Corrective coefficient — Act adversely affecting an official — Equal treatment) | 31 |
| 2013/C 038/61 | Case F-6/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Bourtembourg v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Concept of habitual residence — Permanent or habitual centre of interests — Temporary residence for the purpose of study — Place where professional activity is pursued — Fixed term employment relationship) | 32 |
| 2013/C 038/62 | Case F-70/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal procedure for 2008 — Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned — Consultation of the ad hoc group — Designation under the Staff Regulations — Designation for union purposes — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 32 |
| 2013/C 038/63 | Case F-109/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal procedure for 2009 — Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned — Designation under the Staff Regulations — Designation for union purposes — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 32 |
| 2013/C 038/64 | Case F-27/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 — Ghigna v Commission | 33 |
| 2013/C 038/65 | Case F-69/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2012 — Dekker v Europol | 33 |
| 2013/C 038/66 | Case F-70/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012 — Parikka v SEAE | 33 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 038/03

Case C-610/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Preliminary objection of inadmissibility — Article 228(2) EC and Article 260(2) TFEU — Failure to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties)

5

2013/C 038/04

Case C-215/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Iwona Szyrocka v SiGer Technologie GmbH (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Application for an order which does not comply with the formal requirements laid down by national law — Exhaustive nature of the requirements to be met by the application — Whether it is possible to claim the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal)

5

2013/C 038/05

Case C-226/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others (Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Appreciable restriction — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 3(2) — National competition authority — Practices which may affect trade between Member States — Proceedings and penalty — Market share thresholds of the de minimis notice not attained — Restrictions by object)

6

2013/C 038/06

Joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — French Republic v European Parliament (Actions for annulment — Law governing the institutions — Calendar of plenary part-sessions of the European Parliament for 2012 and 2013 — Protocols on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union)

7

2013/C 038/07

Case C-379/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Caves Krier Frères SARL v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Subsidy for the recruitment of older unemployed persons and the long-term unemployed — Condition of registration with a placement office of the national employment administration — Residence condition — Restriction — Justification)

7

2013/C 038/08

Case C-395/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Decision 2004/290/EC — Manner in which a Member State applies a derogating measure — Authorisation — Article 2, point (1) — Construction work — Interpretation — Supplies of goods covered — Possibility for the derogating measure to be applied only in part — Restrictions)

8

2013/C 038/09

Case C-465/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Forposta SA, ABC Direct Contact sp. z o.o. v Poczta Polska SA (Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2), first subparagraph, point (d) — Directive 2004/17/EC — Articles 53(3) and 54(4) — Public procurement — Postal services sector — Exclusion criteria in relation to the procedure for the award of a contract — Grave professional misconduct — Protection of the public interest — Maintenance of fair competition)

8

2013/C 038/10

Case C-670/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Vinifrance SA (Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Articles 4 and 5 — Administrative penalty — Administrative measure — Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 — Aid for the private storage of concentrated grape must — Community origin — Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 — Long-term storage contract — Article 2(2) — Article 17(1)(b) — Reduction of the amount of aid in relation to the seriousness of the breach committed)

9

2013/C 038/11

Case C-11/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system — Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules — Vicarious liability)

10

2013/C 038/12

Case C-1/11 SA: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union)

10

2013/C 038/13

Case C-529/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2012 — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

11

2013/C 038/14

Case C-537/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 1 de Catarroja (Spain) lodged on 26 November 2012 — Banco Popular Español S.A. v Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo and Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez

11

2013/C 038/15

Case C-546/12 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2012 by Ralf Schräder against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 18 September 2012 in Joined Cases T-133/08, T-134/08, T-177/08 and T-242/09 Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office

12

2013/C 038/16

Case C-556/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 3 December 2012 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet

13

2013/C 038/17

Case C-561/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium

13

2013/C 038/18

Case C-562/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee

14

2013/C 038/19

Case C-564/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA and Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti

14

2013/C 038/20

Case C-565/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA v Fesih Kalhan

15

2013/C 038/21

Case C-571/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 6 December 2012 — SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

15

2013/C 038/22

Case C-572/12: Action brought on 6 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

15

2013/C 038/23

Case C-573/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 6 December 2012 — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten

16

2013/C 038/24

Case C-575/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 December 2012 — AS Air Baltic Corporation v Valsts robežsardze

16

2013/C 038/25

Case C-51/11: Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH

17

2013/C 038/26

Joined Cases C-33/12 and C-38/12: Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság — (Hungary)) — Körös-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-33/12), Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-38/12) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

17

2013/C 038/27

Case C-98/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Wim JJ Slot v 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH

17

General Court

2013/C 038/28

Case T-103/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Versalis and Eni v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Chloroprene rubber market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Rights of the defence — Evidence of involvement in the agreement — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Repeat offending — Deterrence — Attenuating circumstances — Maximum turnover limit of 10 % — Cooperation — 2002 Leniency Notice — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

18

2013/C 038/29

Case T-34/10: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MAGIC LIGHT — Earlier national word mark MAGIC LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

18

2013/C 038/30

Case T-588/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Arable crops — Dried grapes — Raw tobacco — Specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products — Sheepmeat and goatmeat — Cross compliance — Proportionality)

18

2013/C 038/31

Case T-136/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (pelican) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark pelikan — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the applicant — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

19

2013/C 038/32

Joined Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Commission v Strack (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Access to documents — Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — No act adversely affecting an official — Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

19

2013/C 038/33

Case T-199/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Strack v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Application for authorisation to disclose documents — Application for authorisation to publish a text — Application for authorisation to use findings before national judicial authorities — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — No act adversely affecting an official — Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

20

2013/C 038/34

Case T-357/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark GRUPO BIMBO — Earlier national word mark BIMBO — Relative ground for refusal — Mark with a reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

20

2013/C 038/35

Case T-461/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Ménard (natura) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark natura — Prior Community word mark NATURA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

20

2013/C 038/36

Case T-595/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — A v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Social security — Occupational disease — Total permanent invalidity — Access to the personal file — Reimbursement of travel expenses — Claim for damages)

21

2013/C 038/37

Case T-231/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Adriatica di Navigazione and Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

21

2013/C 038/38

Case T-253/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Bauer v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

22

2013/C 038/39

Case T-260/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

22

2013/C 038/40

Case T-261/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Sacaim and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

23

2013/C 038/41

Case T-463/11: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

23

2013/C 038/42

Case T-584/11: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2012 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

24

2013/C 038/43

Case T-641/11 P: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Mische v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade and step — Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials — Recruitment by the Parliament and simultaneous transfer to the Commission — No need to adjudicate in part — Appeal in part clearly unfounded)

24

2013/C 038/44

Case T-464/12 P (R): Order of the General Court of 3 December 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Order made at first instance in interim proceedings rejecting an application for suspension of operation of the contested decision — Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of sums which he claims were unjustly deducted from his allowance)

25

2013/C 038/45

Case T-511/12: Action brought on 12 November 2012 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Fronsac SW and Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)

25

2013/C 038/46

Case T-536/12: Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)

25

2013/C 038/47

Case T-538/12: Action brought on 13 December 2012 — Optilingua holding SA v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)

26

2013/C 038/48

Case T-424/11: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Cementos Molins v Commission

26

2013/C 038/49

Case T-32/12: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)

27

2013/C 038/50

Case T-90/12: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Elegant Target Development and Others v Council

27

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2013/C 038/51

Case F-52/05 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Q v Commission (Civil service — Referral back to Tribunal after setting aside — Administration’s duty to provide assistance — Psychological harassment — Provisional removal from post — Reparation for non-material damage — Career development reviews — Justified absences on the ground of sickness — Failure to take into account)

28

2013/C 038/52

Case F-41/06 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Invalidity — Retirement on the grounds of invalidity — Composition of the Invalidity Committee — Validity — Conditions)

28

2013/C 038/53

Case F-88/09 and F-48/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Z v Court of Justice (Civil service — Officials — Reassignment — Interests of the service — General rule of correspondence between the grade and the post — Rights of the defence — Psychological harassment — Article 12 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of care — Principle of sound administration — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Written warning — Rights of the defence and principle of the right to be heard)

29

2013/C 038/54

Case F-43/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Maria Concetta Cerafogli v ECB (Civil service — Staff of the ECB — Complaint of psychological harassment — Administrative inquiry — Access to the file of the inquiry — Report on the inquiry — Manifest error of assessment)

29

2013/C 038/55

Case F-112/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Trentea v FRA (Civil service — FRA staff — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Rejection of an application)

29

2013/C 038/56

Case F-118/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Psarras v ENISA (Civil Service — Assignment — Reassignment — Interest of the service — Leave on personal grounds)

30

2013/C 038/57

Case F-2/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — BW v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Probationary official — Not established at the end of the probationary period — Statement of reasons on which the decision to dismiss a probationary official is based — Rights of the defence)

30

2013/C 038/58

Case F-76/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Grazyte v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Ten-year reference period — Starting point — Expiry point — Periods of service for an international organisation disregarded — Application by analogy with the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation)

31

2013/C 038/59

Case F-77/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Van Neyghem v Council (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Promotion year 2007 — Refusal of promotion — Annulment — Implementing measures — Fresh comparative examination of the merits)

31

2013/C 038/60

Case F-110/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Lebedef and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Article 64 of the Staff Regulations — First subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Corrective coefficient — Act adversely affecting an official — Equal treatment)

31

2013/C 038/61

Case F-6/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Bourtembourg v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Concept of habitual residence — Permanent or habitual centre of interests — Temporary residence for the purpose of study — Place where professional activity is pursued — Fixed term employment relationship)

32

2013/C 038/62

Case F-70/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal procedure for 2008 — Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned — Consultation of the ad hoc group — Designation under the Staff Regulations — Designation for union purposes — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

32

2013/C 038/63

Case F-109/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal procedure for 2009 — Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned — Designation under the Staff Regulations — Designation for union purposes — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

32

2013/C 038/64

Case F-27/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 — Ghigna v Commission

33

2013/C 038/65

Case F-69/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2012 — Dekker v Europol

33

2013/C 038/66

Case F-70/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012 — Parikka v SEAE

33

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/1

---

2013/C 38/01

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

OJ C 32, 2.2.2013

Past publications

OJ C 26, 26.1.2013

OJ C 9, 12.1.2013

OJ C 399, 22.12.2012

OJ C 389, 15.12.2012

OJ C 379, 8.12.2012

OJ C 373, 1.12.2012

These texts are available on:

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

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/2

---

DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

of 11 December 2012

concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions

(2013/000/)

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard the opinion of the Administrative Committee of 2 July 2012,

considering that it is necessary to set out rules concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions,

HEREBY ADOPTS THE PRESENT DECISION:

Article 1.

Scope

1.   The present decision shall apply to all documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union, that is to say, documents drawn up or received by it and in its possession, as part of the exercise of its administrative functions.

2.   This decision applies without prejudice to public rights of access to the documents of the Court of Justice of the European Union which might follow from instruments of international law or acts implementing them.

Article 2.

Beneficiaries

1.   Any citizen of the European Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has a right of access to the documents of the Court of Justice of the European Union listed in Article 1(1) subject to the conditions laid down in the present decision.

2.   The Court of Justice of the European Union may, subject to the same conditions, grant access to documents to any natural or legal person not residing or having its registered office in a Member State.

Article 3.

Exceptions

1.   The Court of Justice of the European Union shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of:

| a) | public interest, as regards:






  — | public security, |
| --- | --- | --- |

a)

public interest, as regards:

—

public security,

| — | defence and military matters, |
| --- | --- |

—

defence and military matters,

| — | international relations, |
| --- | --- |

—

international relations,

| — | the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or a Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or a Member State;

| b) | the privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

b)

the privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data.

2.   The Court of Justice of the European Union shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of:

| — | commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property, |
| --- | --- |

—

commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property,

| — | court proceedings and legal advice, |
| --- | --- |

—

court proceedings and legal advice,

| — | the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. |
| --- | --- |

—

the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.

3.   Access to a document drawn up by the Court of Justice of the European Union for internal use or received by it, which relates to a matter on which the decision has not been taken by it, shall be refused if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the decision-making process of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Access to a document containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations within the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be refused even after the decision has been taken if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the decision-making process of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

4.   The exceptions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the document concerned.

5.   If only parts of the requested document are covered by one or more of the exceptions set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the remaining parts of the document shall be disclosed.

6.   The exceptions as laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply only for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document. The exceptions may apply for a maximum period of 30 years. In the case of documents covered by the exceptions relating to privacy or commercial interests, the exceptions may, if necessary, continue to apply after this period.

7.   The present article shall apply without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9.

Article 4.

Submission of initial applications

1.   Applications for access to a document of the Court of Justice of the European Union must be made in one of the official languages of the European Union on a form which is available on the Internet site of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It must be sent by post, fax or electronically in accordance with the instructions set out on the abovementioned Internet site.

2.   Applications shall be made in a sufficiently precise manner and shall contain, in particular, the elements enabling identification of the document or documents requested and the name and address of the applicant.

3.   If an application is not sufficiently precise, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall ask the applicant to clarify the application and shall assist the applicant in doing so.

4.   In the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents, the Court of Justice of the European Union may confer with the applicant informally, with a view to finding a fair solution.

5.   The applicant is not obliged to state reasons for the application.

Article 5.

Processing of initial applications

1.   A written acknowledgement of receipt (post, fax or electronic mail) shall be sent to the applicant immediately upon registration of the form containing the application.

2.   Within a maximum of one month from registration of the application, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall grant access to the document requested by supplying it to the applicant.

3.   If the Court of Justice of the European Union is not in a position to grant access to the document requested, it shall, within the period laid down in paragraph 2 and in writing, inform the applicant of the reasons for the total or partial refusal and inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application within one month of receipt of the reply.

4.   In exceptional cases, for example in the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents, the time-limit provided for in paragraph 2 may be extended by one month, provided that the applicant is notified in advance and that detailed reasons are given.

5.   In the case referred to in Article 4(3), the period for replying shall not start to run until the Court of Justice of the European Union has received additional information from the applicant to make the application sufficiently precise.

Article 6.

Submission of confirmatory applications

1.   In the event of a total or partial refusal of his or her initial application, the applicant may make a confirmatory application.

2.   Failure by the Court of Justice of the European Union to reply within the prescribed time limit shall entitle the applicant to make a confirmatory application.

3.   The confirmatory application must be sent to the Court of Justice of the European Union within one month either of receipt of the total or partial refusal of access to the document requested or, in the absence of any reply to the initial application, of the expiry of the period fixed for the reply.

4.   The confirmatory application must be formulated in accordance with the formal requirements set out in Article 4.

Article 7.

Processing of confirmatory applications

1.   Confirmatory applications shall be handled in the manner prescribed in Article 5, with the exception of the information concerning the right to make a confirmatory application.

2.   In the event that the Court of Justice of the European Union refuses, totally or partially, a confirmatory application, it shall inform the applicant of the remedies open to him or her to challenge that refusal, namely instituting court proceedings and/or making a complaint to the European Ombudsman, under the conditions laid down in Articles 263 and 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

3.   Failure to reply to a confirmatory application within the prescribed time limit shall be considered as a negative reply and entitle the applicant to make use of the procedures set out in paragraph 2.

Article 8.

Competent authorities

1.   The authority empowered to decide on the reply to be given to an initial application for access to a document shall be the Director General whose service holds the document requested. When that service falls under the direct authority of the President or Registrar of the Court of Justice, the competent authority shall be the Head of Service.

The Director General may delegate his or her powers as regards the initial application to the Director in charge of the service which holds the document requested.

2.   When the document requested is held by the Registry of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Registry of the General Court of the European Union or the Registry of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, the competent authorities shall be the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Justice, the Deputy Registrar of the General Court and the administrator of the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal having the most seniority in post respectively.

The Deputy Registrars of the Court of Justice and the General Court may delegate their powers as regards an initial application to an administrator in their Registry.

3.   The authority empowered to decide on the reply to be given to a confirmatory application shall be the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, where the confirmatory application concerns a document held by the Registry of the General Court of the European Union or the Registry of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, the Registrar in charge of the Registry holding the document.

4.   When a Member State, having received an application for access to a document which it holds and which emanates from the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions, contacts the Court of Justice in order to consult it, the reply to that request for consultation shall be given by the authority who would be empowered pursuant to paragraph 3 to reply to a confirmatory application for access to the same document made directly to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Article 9.

Third party documents

1.   The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not grant access to third party documents in its possession until it has received the consent of the third party concerned.

2.   For the purposes of the present article, ‘third party’ shall mean any natural or legal person or body external to the Court of Justice of the European Union, including the Member States, the other institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union and non-member States.

3.   When the Court of Justice of the European Union receives an application for access to a third party document, the competent authority shall consult the third party concerned in order to ascertain whether the third party opposes release of that document, unless it decides of its own motion to refuse to release the document on the basis of one of the exceptions set out in Article 3.

Article 10.

Means of access

1.   Documents shall be supplied in an existing version and format. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not be required, by virtue of the present decision, to create a new document or gather information at the request of the applicant.

The copy supplied may be a paper copy or an electronic copy, having full regard to the applicant’s preference in that respect.

If documents are voluminous or difficult to handle, the applicant may be invited to consult the documents on the spot.

2.   If a document has already been released by the Court of Justice of the European Union or by another institution concerned and is easily accessible, the Court of Justice may merely inform the applicant how to obtain it.

Article 11.

Charge for access

1.   A fee for producing and sending copies may be charged to the applicant.

2.   Consultation on the spot and copies of less than 20 A4 pages shall as a general rule be free of charge.

3.   The fee for producing and sending copies shall be calculated on the basis of a tariff fixed by decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice. This fee shall not exceed the real cost of producing and sending the copies.

4.   Published documents shall continue to be subject to their own pricing system.

Article 12.

Reproduction of documents

1.   This decision shall be without prejudice to any existing rules on copyright which may limit a third party’s right to reproduce or exploit released documents.

2.   Documents covered by copyright of which the Court of Justice of the European Union is the holder and which are released by virtue of this decision may not be reproduced or exploited for commercial purposes without the prior written authorisation of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Article 13.

Application measures

The Registrar of the Court of Justice shall adopt the measures necessary for the application of this decision. Those measures shall be published on the Internet site of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Article 14.

Entry into force

This decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, .

Registrar

A. CALOT ESCOBAR

President

V. SKOURIS

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-610/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Preliminary objection of inadmissibility - Article 228(2) EC and Article 260(2) TFEU - Failure to comply with the judgment - Financial penalties)

2013/C 38/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

Supported by: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Art. 260 TFEU — Non-compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 2002 in Case C-499/99 (ECR I-6031) — Application for the imposition of a penalty payment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the supplementary letter of formal notice issued on 18 March 2010 by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 2 July 2002 in Case C-499/99 Commission v Spain, relating, inter alia, to the recovery from Industrias Domésticas SA of aid which, under Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aid in Spain which the central and several autonomous governments granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless steel and small electric appliances, was found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the supplementary letter of formal notice issued on 18 March 2010 by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 2 July 2002 in Case C-499/99 Commission v Spain, relating, inter alia, to the recovery from Industrias Domésticas SA of aid which, under Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aid in Spain which the central and several autonomous governments granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless steel and small electric appliances, was found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 50 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Spain, from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the date on which the judgment in Commission v Spain is complied with; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 50 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Spain, from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the date on which the judgment in Commission v Spain is complied with;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 20 million; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 20 million;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

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

5.

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Iwona Szyrocka v SiGer Technologie GmbH

(Case C-215/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Application for an order which does not comply with the formal requirements laid down by national law - Exhaustive nature of the requirements to be met by the application - Whether it is possible to claim the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal)

2013/C 38/04

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iwona Szyrocka

Defendant: SiGer Technologie GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Interpretation of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) — Application for a European order for payment not complying with the formal requirements laid down by the regulation on the one hand, and by national legislation on the other — Law applicable to the procedure for completion or rectification of the application — Possibility of claiming interest on the debt from the date upon which interest becomes due until the date of payment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure must be interpreted as governing exhaustively the requirements to be met by an application for a European order for payment.
  Pursuant to Article 25 of that regulation and subject to the conditions laid down therein, the national court remains free to determine the amount of the court fees in accordance with rules laid down by domestic law, provided that those rules are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and do not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure must be interpreted as governing exhaustively the requirements to be met by an application for a European order for payment.

Pursuant to Article 25 of that regulation and subject to the conditions laid down therein, the national court remains free to determine the amount of the court fees in accordance with rules laid down by domestic law, provided that those rules are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and do not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by European Union law.

| 2. | Articles 4 and 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1896/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding a claimant from demanding, in an application for a European order for payment, interest for the period from the date on which it falls due until the date of payment of the principal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 4 and 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1896/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding a claimant from demanding, in an application for a European order for payment, interest for the period from the date on which it falls due until the date of payment of the principal.

| 3. | Where the defendant is ordered to pay to the claimant the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal, the national court is free to determine the way in which the European order for payment form, set out in Annex V to Regulation No 1896/2006, is to be completed in practice, provided that the form thus completed enables the defendant, first, to be fully aware of the decision that he is required to pay the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal and, second, to identify clearly the rate of interest and the date from which that interest is claimed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Where the defendant is ordered to pay to the claimant the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal, the national court is free to determine the way in which the European order for payment form, set out in Annex V to Regulation No 1896/2006, is to be completed in practice, provided that the form thus completed enables the defendant, first, to be fully aware of the decision that he is required to pay the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal and, second, to identify clearly the rate of interest and the date from which that interest is claimed.

---

(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others

(Case C-226/11) (1)

(Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Appreciable restriction - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 3(2) - National competition authority - Practices which may affect trade between Member States - Proceedings and penalty - Market share thresholds of the de minimis notice not attained - Restrictions by object)

2013/C 38/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Expedia Inc.

Defendants: Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l'Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, VFE Commerce, IDTGV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Relationship between Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and national competition laws — Possibility for national courts and national competition authorities to bring proceedings and to impose penalties in respect of an agreement, decision or concerted practice which may affect trade between Member States but which does not exceed the market share thresholds laid down by the Commission — Agreement with an anti-competitive object.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 101(1) TFUE and 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 (EC) and 82 (EC) must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from applying Article 101(1) TFEU to an agreement between undertakings that may affect trade between Member States, but that does not reach the thresholds specified by the European Commission in its notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1), (EC) (de minimis), provided that that agreement constitutes an appreciable restriction of competition within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Calendar of plenary part-sessions of the European Parliament for 2012 and 2013 - Protocols on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union)

2013/C 38/06

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Pennera, N. Lorenz and E. Waldherr, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Actions for annulment — Vote of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 concerning the calendar of the session periods of the Parliament for 2012 — Calendar laying down that two of the twelve monthly plenary sessions are to be held during the same week in October — Infringement of Protocol No 3 and Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices agencies and departments of the European Union — Place of work of the European Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the votes of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 adopting the Parliament’s calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013 to the extent that they do not provide for 12 monthly plenary part-sessions to be held in Strasbourg in 2012 and 2013; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the votes of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 adopting the Parliament’s calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013 to the extent that they do not provide for 12 monthly plenary part-sessions to be held in Strasbourg in 2012 and 2013;

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

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Caves Krier Frères SARL v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

(Case C-379/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Subsidy for the recruitment of older unemployed persons and the long-term unemployed - Condition of registration with a placement office of the national employment administration - Residence condition - Restriction - Justification)

2013/C 38/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Caves Krier Frères SARL

Respondent: Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU — National legislation making reimbursement of social security contributions to private sector employers upon the hiring of unemployed persons aged over 45 years subject to the condition that the persons be registered with a placement office of the national employment administration for at least one month — Registration condition subject to a residence condition — Obstacle to the free movement of workers — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant to employers of a subsidy for the recruitment of unemployed persons aged over 45 years subject to the condition that the unemployed person recruited has been registered as a job seeker in that same Member State, in the case where such registration is subject to a condition of residence in the national territory, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

(Case C-395/11) (1)

(Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Decision 2004/290/EC - Manner in which a Member State applies a derogating measure - Authorisation - Article 2, point (1) - ‘Construction work’ - Interpretation - Supplies of goods covered - Possibility for the derogating measure to be applied only in part - Restrictions)

2013/C 38/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 2, point (1) of Council Decision 2004/290/EC of 30 March 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 21 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 59) — Right of the authorised Member State to apply that derogation only partially — Term ‘construction work’ contained in that provision — Whether supplies of goods are included

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point (1) of Article 2 of Council Decision 2004/290/EC of 30 March 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 21 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted to the effect that the term ‘construction work’, as used in that provision, covers the supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive, in addition to the transactions to be regarded as supplies of services, as defined in Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2004/7/EC of 20 January 2004. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point (1) of Article 2 of Council Decision 2004/290/EC of 30 March 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 21 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted to the effect that the term ‘construction work’, as used in that provision, covers the supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive, in addition to the transactions to be regarded as supplies of services, as defined in Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2004/7/EC of 20 January 2004.

| 2. | Decision 2004/290 must be interpreted to the effect that it is open to the Federal Republic of Germany to avail itself only partially of the authorisation granted by that decision, exercising it in respect of certain subcategories, such as particular types of construction work, and in respect of supplies to certain recipients. When establishing those subcategories, that Member State is required to respect the principle of fiscal neutrality and the general principles of European Union law and, in particular, the principles of proportionality and legal certainty. It is for the referring court to determine, taking into account all the relevant facts and points of law, whether that is the position in the case before it and, if appropriate, to take the measures necessary to remedy the harmful consequences brought about by the application of the provisions at issue in a manner inconsistent with the principles of proportionality or legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Decision 2004/290 must be interpreted to the effect that it is open to the Federal Republic of Germany to avail itself only partially of the authorisation granted by that decision, exercising it in respect of certain subcategories, such as particular types of construction work, and in respect of supplies to certain recipients. When establishing those subcategories, that Member State is required to respect the principle of fiscal neutrality and the general principles of European Union law and, in particular, the principles of proportionality and legal certainty. It is for the referring court to determine, taking into account all the relevant facts and points of law, whether that is the position in the case before it and, if appropriate, to take the measures necessary to remedy the harmful consequences brought about by the application of the provisions at issue in a manner inconsistent with the principles of proportionality or legal certainty.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Forposta SA, ABC Direct Contact sp. z o.o. v Poczta Polska SA

(Case C-465/11) (1)

(Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45(2), first subparagraph, point (d) - Directive 2004/17/EC - Articles 53(3) and 54(4) - Public procurement - Postal services sector - Exclusion criteria in relation to the procedure for the award of a contract - Grave professional misconduct - Protection of the public interest - Maintenance of fair competition)

2013/C 38/09

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Forposta SA, ABC Direct Contact sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Poczta Polska SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Interpretation of point (d) of the first subparagraph of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) and of Articles 53(3) and 54(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1) — Grounds justifying the exclusion of an economic operator from participation in the tendering procedure — Concept of ‘grave professional misconduct’ — National legislation which obliges the contracting authority to exclude a tenderer with which that authority concluded a contract which it terminated in the three-year period prior to the award procedure on the ground of non-performance relating to at least 5 % of the value of the contract.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that a situation of grave professional misconduct, which leads to the automatic exclusion of the economic operator at issue from a procedure for the award of a public contract in progress, arises where the contracting authority concerned has annulled, terminated or renounced a public contract with that same economic operator owing to circumstances for which that operator is responsible, where the annulment, termination or renouncement occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5 % of the contract’s value. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that a situation of grave professional misconduct, which leads to the automatic exclusion of the economic operator at issue from a procedure for the award of a public contract in progress, arises where the contracting authority concerned has annulled, terminated or renounced a public contract with that same economic operator owing to circumstances for which that operator is responsible, where the annulment, termination or renouncement occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5 % of the contract’s value.

| 2. | The principles or rules of European Union public procurement law does not allow, on the grounds of the protection of the public interest, the legitimate interests of the contracting authorities or the maintenance of fair competition between economic operators, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, requiring the contracting authorities to automatically exclude an economic operator from a procedure for the award of a public contract in a situation such as that referred to in the reply to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principles or rules of European Union public procurement law does not allow, on the grounds of the protection of the public interest, the legitimate interests of the contracting authorities or the maintenance of fair competition between economic operators, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, requiring the contracting authorities to automatically exclude an economic operator from a procedure for the award of a public contract in a situation such as that referred to in the reply to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Vinifrance SA

(Case C-670/11) (1)

(Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Articles 4 and 5 - Administrative penalty - Administrative measure - Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 - Aid for the private storage of concentrated grape must - Community origin - Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 - Long-term storage contract - Article 2(2) - Article 17(1)(b) - Reduction of the amount of aid in relation to the seriousness of the breach committed)

2013/C 38/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendant: Société Vinifrance SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 2(2), and 17 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must (OJ 1983 L 116, p. 77), the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1) and the provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Community aid for the storage of concentrated grape must in return for the conclusion of a storage contract with the national intervention body — Acquisition by the producer of grape must from a fictitious or non-existent company — Concept of ‘owner’ within the meaning of the regulation — Regulation instituting a system of EU aid but without providing a scheme of measures and sanctions in the event of a failure to comply with its provisions — Determination of that scheme in the event of injury to the financial interests of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the non-existence of the company alleged to have sold grape musts means that the Community origin of the grape musts cannot be established, the producer who has acquired those grape musts from that company cannot, on any view, benefit from a storage aid under Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2253/88 of 19 July 1988. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the non-existence of the company alleged to have sold grape musts means that the Community origin of the grape musts cannot be established, the producer who has acquired those grape musts from that company cannot, on any view, benefit from a storage aid under Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2253/88 of 19 July 1988.

| 2. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings:






  — | Article 17(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2646/1999 of 15 December 1999, cannot constitute a legal basis for the purposes of punishing a breach by the producer of the obligation laid down by Regulation No 822/87, as amended by Regulation No 2253/88, according to which the grape musts which can confer an entitlement to storage aid must be of Community origin; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings:

—

Article 17(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2646/1999 of 15 December 1999, cannot constitute a legal basis for the purposes of punishing a breach by the producer of the obligation laid down by Regulation No 822/87, as amended by Regulation No 2253/88, according to which the grape musts which can confer an entitlement to storage aid must be of Community origin;

| — | in the absence, both in sectoral rules and in national rules, of a provision providing for the application of a penalty, the irregularities at issue cannot be subject to a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the absence, both in sectoral rules and in national rules, of a provision providing for the application of a penalty, the irregularities at issue cannot be subject to a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, and

| — | the national authorities are required to apply an administrative measure, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which requires repayment of all of the aid unduly paid, in so far as it is established, which is a matter for the national court to determine, that the two storage contracts at issue in the main proceedings each related, partially or totally, to the grape musts which cannot be regarded as being of Community origin and which were mixed, in the course of concentration and storage, with grape musts of Community origin. |
| --- | --- |

—

the national authorities are required to apply an administrative measure, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which requires repayment of all of the aid unduly paid, in so far as it is established, which is a matter for the national court to determine, that the two storage contracts at issue in the main proceedings each related, partially or totally, to the grape musts which cannot be regarded as being of Community origin and which were mixed, in the course of concentration and storage, with grape musts of Community origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

(Case C-11/12) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system - Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules - Vicarious liability)

2013/C 38/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Integrated management and control system — Reductions and exclusions in the event of non compliance with the cross-compliance rules — Farmer who leased, from a third party, agricultural land and accepted, on a temporary basis, the spreading of manure on that land by that third party — Non-compliance, on the part of that third party, with the statutory management requirements

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, is to be interpreted as meaning that non-compliance with cross-compliance rules by the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred, involving reduction of the total amount of direct payments or exclusion from direct support, must be attributed in full to the farmer submitting the aid application.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/10

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission

(Case C-1/11 SA) (1)

(Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union)

2013/C 38/12

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Protocol on privileges and immunities — Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the Commission in respect of sums owing to the European Union by the Italian Republic and, in the alternative, in respect of movable property belonging to the European Union held in the Italian Republic — Waiver of the Commission’s immunity — Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for a garnishee order is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for a garnishee order is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2012 — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

(Case C-529/12)

2013/C 38/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrea Lange

Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

Question referred

Must the first indent of Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 (1), having regard to Article 31(1) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 (2), be interpreted as precluding a provision — such as the fourth sentence of Paragraph 5a(2) of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) in the version of the Drittes Gesetz zur Durchführung versicherungsrechtlicher Richtlinien des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Third Law implementing directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law) of 21 July 1994 — under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium even if the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation?

---

(1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50)

(2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1)

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 1 de Catarroja (Spain) lodged on 26 November 2012 — Banco Popular Español S.A. v Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo and Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez

(Case C-537/12)

2013/C 38/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 1 de Catarroja

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Popular Español S.A.

Defendants: Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo and Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez

Questions referred

| 1. | (Must) Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents a judicial authority hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings such as those governed by Articles 681 to 695 of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 1/2000 from examining, either of its own motion or at the request of a party, the unfairness of a clause contained in a contract concluded between a supplier or seller and a consumer, whether or not the latter has formulated opposition(?) |
| --- | --- |

1.

(Must) Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents a judicial authority hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings such as those governed by Articles 681 to 695 of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 1/2000 from examining, either of its own motion or at the request of a party, the unfairness of a clause contained in a contract concluded between a supplier or seller and a consumer, whether or not the latter has formulated opposition(?)

| 2. | Regardless of whether the answer to (that question) is positive or negative, (must) Directive 93/13 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents a judicial authority hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings of the kind governed by Articles 681 to 695 of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 1/2000 from suspending those proceedings in the event that declaratory proceedings are subsequently initiated in which a declaration is sought as to the unfairness of a clause contained in the contract concluded between a supplier or seller and a consumer, the said contract having been relied upon to commence the abovementioned enforcement proceedings(?) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regardless of whether the answer to (that question) is positive or negative, (must) Directive 93/13 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents a judicial authority hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings of the kind governed by Articles 681 to 695 of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 1/2000 from suspending those proceedings in the event that declaratory proceedings are subsequently initiated in which a declaration is sought as to the unfairness of a clause contained in the contract concluded between a supplier or seller and a consumer, the said contract having been relied upon to commence the abovementioned enforcement proceedings(?)

---

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

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/12

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2012 by Ralf Schräder against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 18 September 2012 in Joined Cases T-133/08, T-134/08, T-177/08 and T-242/09 Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office

(Case C-546/12 P)

2013/C 38/15

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter, W-A. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Jørn Hansson

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2012, so far as concerns the decision in Case T-242/09 and the decision on costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2012, so far as concerns the decision in Case T-242/09 and the decision on costs;

| — | grant the claim made at first instance for annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 23 January 2009 (Case A 010/2007); |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the claim made at first instance for annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 23 January 2009 (Case A 010/2007);

| — | order the CPVO to bear all the appellant’s costs arising from the present proceedings, the proceedings in Joined Cases T-133/08, T-134/08, T-177/08 and T-242/09 before the General Court and the prior proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the CPVO to bear all the appellant’s costs arising from the present proceedings, the proceedings in Joined Cases T-133/08, T-134/08, T-177/08 and T-242/09 before the General Court and the prior proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| I. | By the first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in proceeding on the basis that in appeal proceedings before the CPVO concerning rejection of an application for cancellation of a Community variety the facts are not to be examined by the CPVO of its own motion. The appellant sees in this an infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and taking of evidence that are applicable in proceedings before the Board of Appeal and a resulting infringement of the General Court’s duty of review, as well as an infringement of the appellant’s rights to a fair hearing, good administration and an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

I.

By the first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in proceeding on the basis that in appeal proceedings before the CPVO concerning rejection of an application for cancellation of a Community variety the facts are not to be examined by the CPVO of its own motion. The appellant sees in this an infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and taking of evidence that are applicable in proceedings before the Board of Appeal and a resulting infringement of the General Court’s duty of review, as well as an infringement of the appellant’s rights to a fair hearing, good administration and an effective remedy.

| II. | By the second plea, the appellant criticises the General Court’s finding that an entitlement to measures of inquiry exists in proceedings before the CPVO only if the party has adduced at least some evidence in support of its application in that regard. Here the appellant complains of infringement of the rules concerning the burden of proof and taking of evidence, denial of the right to be heard and distortion of the facts and the evidence even if it is assumed that the burden of proof rests with the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

II.

By the second plea, the appellant criticises the General Court’s finding that an entitlement to measures of inquiry exists in proceedings before the CPVO only if the party has adduced at least some evidence in support of its application in that regard. Here the appellant complains of infringement of the rules concerning the burden of proof and taking of evidence, denial of the right to be heard and distortion of the facts and the evidence even if it is assumed that the burden of proof rests with the appellant.

| III. | By the third plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in assuming a fact to be ‘well known’ when, according to the appellant, it is an ‘incorrect fact’, that is to say a fact that is non-existent. Here the appellant pleads infringement of the General Court’s duty of review of legality and alleges distortion of facts and evidence. |
| --- | --- |

III.

By the third plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in assuming a fact to be ‘well known’ when, according to the appellant, it is an ‘incorrect fact’, that is to say a fact that is non-existent. Here the appellant pleads infringement of the General Court’s duty of review of legality and alleges distortion of facts and evidence.

| IV. | By the fourth plea, the appellant contends that the General Court made legally incorrect findings on the burden of presentation and of proof in alleging that the appellant adduced no evidence for its submissions concerning the effect of growth regulators. In this connection the appellant pleads that the judgment is contradictory, that the General Court failed to conduct a review of legality and that the grounds stated by the General Court are deficient. |
| --- | --- |

IV.

By the fourth plea, the appellant contends that the General Court made legally incorrect findings on the burden of presentation and of proof in alleging that the appellant adduced no evidence for its submissions concerning the effect of growth regulators. In this connection the appellant pleads that the judgment is contradictory, that the General Court failed to conduct a review of legality and that the grounds stated by the General Court are deficient.

| V. | By the fifth plea, the appellant criticises the finding of the General Court that the characteristic ‘attitude of shoots’ of an Osteospermum variety was not included in the examination of distinctness or did not determine that examination. This constitutes an infringement of Articles 7 and 20 of the regulation (1) and an impermissible extension of the subject-matter of the dispute, and the General Court’s decision infringes the prohibition on taking decisions by surprise. Furthermore, the right to be heard was denied. |
| --- | --- |

V.

By the fifth plea, the appellant criticises the finding of the General Court that the characteristic ‘attitude of shoots’ of an Osteospermum variety was not included in the examination of distinctness or did not determine that examination. This constitutes an infringement of Articles 7 and 20 of the regulation (1) and an impermissible extension of the subject-matter of the dispute, and the General Court’s decision infringes the prohibition on taking decisions by surprise. Furthermore, the right to be heard was denied.

| VI. | By the sixth plea, the appellant contests the General Court’s finding that the ‘attitude of shoots’ of a plant variety is to be determined on the basis of relative criteria, that is to say, in relation to other plants forming part of the examination concerned. According to the appellant, this amounts to distortion of facts, infringement of the regulation, an impermissible extension of the subject-matter of the dispute and infringement of the General Court’s duty to conduct a comprehensive review of legality. The decision is therefore contradictory. |
| --- | --- |

VI.

By the sixth plea, the appellant contests the General Court’s finding that the ‘attitude of shoots’ of a plant variety is to be determined on the basis of relative criteria, that is to say, in relation to other plants forming part of the examination concerned. According to the appellant, this amounts to distortion of facts, infringement of the regulation, an impermissible extension of the subject-matter of the dispute and infringement of the General Court’s duty to conduct a comprehensive review of legality. The decision is therefore contradictory.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 3 December 2012 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet

(Case C-556/12)

2013/C 38/16

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TDC A/S

Defendant: Teleklagenævnet

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the definition of ‘access’ in Article 2(a) of the Access Directive (1) cover access in the form of the installation of drop cables between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at the end-user’s premises? Does it make a difference in answering the question that the maximum length of such drop cables is 30 metres? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the definition of ‘access’ in Article 2(a) of the Access Directive (1) cover access in the form of the installation of drop cables between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at the end-user’s premises? Does it make a difference in answering the question that the maximum length of such drop cables is 30 metres?

| 2. | Is the installation of a drop cable over a distance of up to 30 metres between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at the end user’s premises covered by the phrase ‘access to, and use of, specific network elements and associated facilities’ in Article 12 of the Access Directive, ref. Article 2 and Article 8? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the installation of a drop cable over a distance of up to 30 metres between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at the end user’s premises covered by the phrase ‘access to, and use of, specific network elements and associated facilities’ in Article 12 of the Access Directive, ref. Article 2 and Article 8?

| 3. | Is it relevant for the answer to question 1 and question 2, where the access obligation takes the form of a requirement, for example, to install drop cables between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at an end-user’s premises, that the owner of an electronic communications network must undertake investment which considerably exceeds the acquisition cost of the electronic communications network to which access must be provided? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant for the answer to question 1 and question 2, where the access obligation takes the form of a requirement, for example, to install drop cables between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at an end-user’s premises, that the owner of an electronic communications network must undertake investment which considerably exceeds the acquisition cost of the electronic communications network to which access must be provided?

| 4. | Is it relevant for the answer to question 3 that the owner is able to recover the costs of installing the drop cables through an imposed price control obligation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it relevant for the answer to question 3 that the owner is able to recover the costs of installing the drop cables through an imposed price control obligation?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7)

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium

(Case C-561/12)

2013/C 38/17

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS

Defendant: Rahandusministeerium

Third Party: Maanteeamet

Questions referred

| (a) | Must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority to conduct negotiations with tenderers on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority to conduct negotiations with tenderers on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract?

| (b) | If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders to alter the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications, provided that the subject-matter of the contract is not altered and equal treatment of all tenderers is ensured? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders to alter the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications, provided that the subject-matter of the contract is not altered and equal treatment of all tenderers is ensured?

| (c) | If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as meaning that a rule which excludes alteration of the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders is contrary to that provision? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as meaning that a rule which excludes alteration of the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders is contrary to that provision?

| (d) | If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as prohibiting the contracting authority from accepting as the best tender a tender which at the end of the negotiations does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as prohibiting the contracting authority from accepting as the best tender a tender which at the end of the negotiations does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee

(Case C-562/12)

2013/C 38/18

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis

Defendant: Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee

Third party: Eesti Vabariigi Siseministeerium

Questions referred

| (a) | Are the rules of procedure of a monitoring committee jointly set up by two Member States, such as the Programme Manual adopted by the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007–2013, which provide that ‘The decisions of the Monitoring Committee are not appealable at any place of jurisdiction’ (Chapter 6.6.4 of the Programme Manual) compatible with Article 63(2) of Council Regulation No 1083/2006 (1) in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Are the rules of procedure of a monitoring committee jointly set up by two Member States, such as the Programme Manual adopted by the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007–2013, which provide that ‘The decisions of the Monitoring Committee are not appealable at any place of jurisdiction’ (Chapter 6.6.4 of the Programme Manual) compatible with Article 63(2) of Council Regulation No 1083/2006 (1) in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| (b) | If Question (a) is to be answered in the negative, must point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that Chapter 6.6.4 of the Programme Manual adopted by the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007-2013 is an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the Union which must be declared invalid? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If Question (a) is to be answered in the negative, must point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that Chapter 6.6.4 of the Programme Manual adopted by the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007-2013 is an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the Union which must be declared invalid?

| (c) | If Question (a) is to be answered in the negative, must the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 263 in conjunction with Article 256(1) and Article 274 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the General Court of the European Union or the competent court under national law has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions against decisions of the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007-2013? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If Question (a) is to be answered in the negative, must the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 263 in conjunction with Article 256(1) and Article 274 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the General Court of the European Union or the competent court under national law has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions against decisions of the Monitoring Committee for the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007-2013?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA and Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti

(Case C-564/12)

2013/C 38/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Facet SA

Defendant: Guillaume Delmatti

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) interpreted in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (2) prohibit the existence and application of standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that the creditor’s obligations have been fulfilled? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) interpreted in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (2) prohibit the existence and application of standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that the creditor’s obligations have been fulfilled?

| 2. | Do the general principle of the effectiveness of Community law and Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude the creditor’s being able to establish proof of fulfilment of its pre-contractual and contractual obligations solely by means of the standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that those obligations have been fulfilled, without producing before the court the documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the general principle of the effectiveness of Community law and Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude the creditor’s being able to establish proof of fulfilment of its pre-contractual and contractual obligations solely by means of the standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that those obligations have been fulfilled, without producing before the court the documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?

---

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

(2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA v Fesih Kalhan

(Case C-565/12)

2013/C 38/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA

Defendant: Fesih Kalhan

Question referred

Does the requirement for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties laid down in Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) in the case of breaches on the part of creditors of the obligations set out in the directive, preclude the existence of rules that allow the creditor, which has been penalised by forfeiture of its entitlement to interest as provided for in the French legislation, to benefit, after the imposition of the penalty, from interest payable by operation of law at a statutory rate, that is increased by five percentage points two months after a court decision has become enforceable, on the sums that remain payable by the consumer?

---

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

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 6 December 2012 — SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-571/12)

2013/C 38/21

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | May the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to apply the results of the examination of part of the goods in a customs declaration also to goods included in earlier declarations which were not the subject of the partial examination, but which had been declared with the same Combined Nomenclature code, came from the same manufacturer and which, according to information concerning the name and composition of the goods on that manufacturer’s certificates, were identical to the goods in the declaration in respect of which samples had been taken for partial examination?
  In other words:
  Does the concept of ‘declaration’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 also include declarations in respect of which samples have not been taken for examination, but in which identical goods have been declared (that is, the goods are declared under the same Combined Nomenclature code, come from the same manufacturer and on the manufacturer’s certificates the same name and composition of goods are given)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to apply the results of the examination of part of the goods in a customs declaration also to goods included in earlier declarations which were not the subject of the partial examination, but which had been declared with the same Combined Nomenclature code, came from the same manufacturer and which, according to information concerning the name and composition of the goods on that manufacturer’s certificates, were identical to the goods in the declaration in respect of which samples had been taken for partial examination?

In other words:

Does the concept of ‘declaration’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 also include declarations in respect of which samples have not been taken for examination, but in which identical goods have been declared (that is, the goods are declared under the same Combined Nomenclature code, come from the same manufacturer and on the manufacturer’s certificates the same name and composition of goods are given)?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the results of the partial examination of the goods under the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 be applied also to declarations in respect of which, for objective reasons, the declarant is unable to request a further examination under the second subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 since it is not possible to produce the goods for examination pursuant to Article 78(2) of Regulation No 2913/92? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the results of the partial examination of the goods under the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 be applied also to declarations in respect of which, for objective reasons, the declarant is unable to request a further examination under the second subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 since it is not possible to produce the goods for examination pursuant to Article 78(2) of Regulation No 2913/92?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/15

---

Action brought on 6 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-572/12)

2013/C 38/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, E. Manhaeve, A. Tokár, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/81/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/81/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive;

| — | in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay a daily penalty payment in the sum of EUR 57 324,80 from the date on which judgment is delivered in this case; |
| --- | --- |

—

in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay a daily penalty payment in the sum of EUR 57 324,80 from the date on which judgment is delivered in this case;

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

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 21 August 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 216, p. 76.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 6 December 2012 — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten

(Case C-573/12)

2013/C 38/23

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ålands Vindkraft AB

Defendant: Energimyndigheten

Questions referred

| 1. | The Swedish electricity certificate system is a national support scheme which requires electricity suppliers and certain electricity users in the Member State to purchase an electricity certificate, corresponding to a certain share of their sales or use, without there being a specific requirement also to purchase electricity from the same source. The electricity certificate is issued by the Swedish State and is proof that a certain amount of renewable electricity has been produced. The producers of electricity obtained from renewable sources receive, by the sale of the electricity certificate, extra revenue as an additional income from its production of electricity. Are Article (2(k)) and Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that they permit a Member State to apply a national support scheme as above, in which only producers situated in the territory of that country can participate and which has the result that those producers have an economic advantage over producers who cannot be issued with an electricity certificate? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Swedish electricity certificate system is a national support scheme which requires electricity suppliers and certain electricity users in the Member State to purchase an electricity certificate, corresponding to a certain share of their sales or use, without there being a specific requirement also to purchase electricity from the same source. The electricity certificate is issued by the Swedish State and is proof that a certain amount of renewable electricity has been produced. The producers of electricity obtained from renewable sources receive, by the sale of the electricity certificate, extra revenue as an additional income from its production of electricity. Are Article (2(k)) and Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that they permit a Member State to apply a national support scheme as above, in which only producers situated in the territory of that country can participate and which has the result that those producers have an economic advantage over producers who cannot be issued with an electricity certificate?

| 2. | Can a system such as that described in question 1 — in the light of Article 34 (TFEU) — be regarded as constituting a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can a system such as that described in question 1 — in the light of Article 34 (TFEU) — be regarded as constituting a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is affirmative, can such a system be compatible with Article 34 (TFEU) as regards the objective of promoting the production of electricity from renewable energy sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is affirmative, can such a system be compatible with Article 34 (TFEU) as regards the objective of promoting the production of electricity from renewable energy sources?

| 4. | How is the consideration of the above questions affected by the fact that the restriction of the support scheme to include only national producers is not expressly governed in national law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How is the consideration of the above questions affected by the fact that the restriction of the support scheme to include only national producers is not expressly governed in national law?

---

(1)  OJ L 140, p. 16.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 December 2012 — AS ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ v Valsts robežsardze

(Case C-575/12)

2013/C 38/24

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AS ‘Air Baltic Corporation’

Respondent: Valsts robežsardze

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) be interpreted as meaning that existence of a valid visa contained in a valid travel document is a mandatory pre-condition for the entry of a third-country national? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) be interpreted as meaning that existence of a valid visa contained in a valid travel document is a mandatory pre-condition for the entry of a third-country national?

| 2. | Under Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), does cancellation of a travel document to which a visa sticker is affixed mean that the visa issued is also invalidated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), does cancellation of a travel document to which a visa sticker is affixed mean that the visa issued is also invalidated?

| 3. | Are national rules which require, as a mandatory pre-condition for the entry of third-country nationals, the existence of a valid visa contained in a valid travel document compatible with Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) and Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are national rules which require, as a mandatory pre-condition for the entry of third-country nationals, the existence of a valid visa contained in a valid travel document compatible with Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) and Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-51/11) (1)

2013/C 38/25

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság — (Hungary)) — Körös-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-33/12), Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-38/12) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Joined Cases C-33/12 and C-38/12) (1)

2013/C 38/26

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Wim JJ Slot v 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH

(Case C-98/12) (1)

2013/C 38/27

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

General Court

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Versalis and Eni v Commission

(Case T-103/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Chloroprene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Rights of the defence - Evidence of involvement in the agreement - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Repeat offending - Deterrence - Attenuating circumstances - Maximum turnover limit of 10 % - Cooperation - 2002 Leniency Notice - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

2013/C 38/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy) and Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented: initially by M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, V. Ruotolo, V. Larocca and D. Durante; and subsequently by M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, V. Larocca and D. Durante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene rubber), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, a request for annulment or reduction of the level of the fine imposed jointly on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Fixes the level of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Eni SpA and Versalis SpA for the offence stated in Article 1(d) of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene rubber) at EUR 106 200 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Fixes the level of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Eni SpA and Versalis SpA for the offence stated in Article 1(d) of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene rubber) at EUR 106 200 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Eni and Versalis to bear four fifths of their costs and four fifths of the costs of the European Commission and orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the costs of Eni and Versalis. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Eni and Versalis to bear four fifths of their costs and four fifths of the costs of the European Commission and orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the costs of Eni and Versalis.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/18

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)

(Case T-34/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MAGIC LIGHT - Earlier national word mark MAGIC LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 38/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: G. Kresbach, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rüdiger Bartmann (Gladbeck, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 (Case R 656/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rüdiger Bartmann and Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-588/10) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Arable crops - Dried grapes - Raw tobacco - Specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products - Sheepmeat and goatmeat - Cross compliance - Proportionality)

2013/C 38/30

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and X. Basakou, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Markoulli, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (pelican)

(Case T-136/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark pelikan - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith on the part of the applicant - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 38/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: pelicantravel.com s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Chlipala, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2010 (Case R 1428/2009-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between pelicantravel.com s.r.o. and Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders pelicantravel.com s.r.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders pelicantravel.com s.r.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Commission v Strack

(Joined Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Access to documents - Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - No act adversely affecting an official - Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

2013/C 38/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and B. Eggers, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Re:

Two appeals brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07 Strack v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P for the purposes of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P for the purposes of the present judgment;

| 2. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07 Strack v Commission (2011) ECR I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 in so far as that Tribunal considered itself to have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for annulment against a decision adopted under Regulation No 1049/2001; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07 Strack v Commission (2011) ECR I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 in so far as that Tribunal considered itself to have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for annulment against a decision adopted under Regulation No 1049/2001;

| 3. | Dismisses the appeal in Case T-198/11 P; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the appeal in Case T-198/11 P;

| 4. | Orders Mr Guido Strack to bear his own costs in Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Case T-198/11 P; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Guido Strack to bear his own costs in Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Case T-198/11 P;

| 5. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs in Case T-197/11 P; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs in Case T-197/11 P;

| 6. | Orders Mr Strack to pay the Civil Service Tribunal EUR 2 000 in order to reimburse part of the costs which that latter had to incur. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders Mr Strack to pay the Civil Service Tribunal EUR 2 000 in order to reimburse part of the costs which that latter had to incur.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Strack v Commission

(Case T-199/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Application for authorisation to disclose documents - Application for authorisation to publish a text - Application for authorisation to use findings before national judicial authorities - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - No act adversely affecting an official - Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

2013/C 38/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-132/07 Strack v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Guido Strack to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Guido Strack to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Mr Strack to pay the Civil Service Tribunal EUR 2 000 in order to reimburse part of the costs which that latter had to incur. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Strack to pay the Civil Service Tribunal EUR 2 000 in order to reimburse part of the costs which that latter had to incur.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO)

(Case T-357/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark GRUPO BIMBO - Earlier national word mark BIMBO - Relative ground for refusal - Mark with a reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 38/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV;

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

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Ménard (natura)

(Case T-461/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark natura - Prior Community word mark NATURA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 38/35

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Natura Selection, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ernest Ménard SA (Bourseul, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2011 (Case R 2454/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Ernest Ménard SA and Natura Selection, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Natura Selection, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Natura Selection, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — A v Commission

(Case T-595/11) (1)

(Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Social security - Occupational disease - Total permanent invalidity - Access to the personal file - Reimbursement of travel expenses - Claim for damages)

2013/C 38/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: A (P., France) (represented by: B. Cambier, A. Paternostre and L. Levi, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011, A v Commission (F-12/09, not yet published in the ECR), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | There is no further need to rule on the appeal in so far as it concerns the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011, A v Commission (F-12/09, not yet published in the ECR), in so far as it concerns the application to set aside the decision of 28 April 2008 in as far as it refused to pay the provisional allowance provided for under Article 19(4) of the joint rules and to apply the provisions of Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, and the application to order the Commission to pay the benefit provided for by that article; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to rule on the appeal in so far as it concerns the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011, A v Commission (F-12/09, not yet published in the ECR), in so far as it concerns the application to set aside the decision of 28 April 2008 in as far as it refused to pay the provisional allowance provided for under Article 19(4) of the joint rules and to apply the provisions of Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, and the application to order the Commission to pay the benefit provided for by that article;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/21

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Adriatica di Navigazione and Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ v Commission

(Case T-231/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/37

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Adriatica di Navigazione SpA (Venice, Italy) and Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ (Venice) (represented by: M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and lastly by I. Bruni, agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is considered with the substance of the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is considered with the substance of the case.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 3. | Adriatica di Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Adriatica di Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission.

| 4. | The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/22

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Bauer v Commission

(Case T-253/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Bauer SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. M. Roberti, F. Sciaudone and A. Bortoluzzi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: The Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 3. | Bauer SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Bauer SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 4. | The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/22

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca and Others v Commission

(Case T-260/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca — Burano Soc. coop. rl (Venice, Italy); Cooperativa Coopesca — Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca — Chioggia Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia, Italy); Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. rl (Venice); Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. rl (Venice); Murazzo — Piccola Società Cooperativa rl (Chioggia); RAM — Società Cooperativa fra Lavoratori della Pesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatori di Molluschi (Chioggia); Confcooperative — Unione Provinciale di Venezia (Mestre, Italy); and Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ (Marghera, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervening party in support of the applicants: The Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 3. | Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca — Burano Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Coopesca — Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca — Chioggia Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. rl, Murazzo — Piccola Società Cooperativa rl, RAM — Società Cooperativa fra Lavoratori della Pesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatori di Molluschi, Confcooperative — Unione Provinciale di Venezia et Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca — Burano Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Coopesca — Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca — Chioggia Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. rl, Murazzo — Piccola Società Cooperativa rl, RAM — Società Cooperativa fra Lavoratori della Pesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatori di Molluschi, Confcooperative — Unione Provinciale di Venezia et Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 4. | The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/23

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Sacaim and Others v Commission

(Case T-261/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/40

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Sacaim SpA (Venice, Italy); Alfier Costruzioni Srl (Venice); Azin Asfalti Srl (Venice); Barbato Srl (Venice); Camata Costruzioni Sas (Venice); Dal Carlo Mario & C. Srl (Venice); Impresa Costruzioni Civili e Montaggi Srl (ICCEM) (Marghera, Italy); Rossi Renzo Costruzioni Srl (Marcon, Italy); Vettore Costruzioni Srl (Venice); ACEA — Associazione dei Costruttori Edili ed Affini di Venezia e Provincia (Venice); and Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ (Marghera) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola, A. Sodano and M. Pappalardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants: The Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 3. | Sacaim SpA, Alfier Costruzioni Srl, Azin Asfalti Srl, Barbato Srl, Camata Costruzioni Sas, Dal Carlo Mario & C. Srl, Impresa Costruzioni Civili e Montaggi Srl (ICCEM), Rossi Renzo Costruzioni Srl, Vettore Costruzioni Srl, ACEA — Associazione dei Costruttori Edili ed Affini di Venezia e Provincia and Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Sacaim SpA, Alfier Costruzioni Srl, Azin Asfalti Srl, Barbato Srl, Camata Costruzioni Sas, Dal Carlo Mario & C. Srl, Impresa Costruzioni Civili e Montaggi Srl (ICCEM), Rossi Renzo Costruzioni Srl, Vettore Costruzioni Srl, ACEA — Associazione dei Costruttori Edili ed Affini di Venezia e Provincia and Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 4. | The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/23

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE)

(Case T-463/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 38/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dectane GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by K. Klüpfel, then by K. Klüpfel and D. Botis, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. (Lippstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Schnekenbühl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2011 (Case R 1231/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. and Dectane GmbH.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/24

---

Order of the General Court of 11 December 2012 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)

(Case T-584/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 38/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alfred Hartmann (Leer, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2011 (Case R 2262/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Alfred Hartmann and Atlas Transport GmbH.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The parties are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/24

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Mische v Commission

(Case T-641/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade and step - Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials - Recruitment by the Parliament and simultaneous transfer to the Commission - No need to adjudicate in part - Appeal in part clearly unfounded)

2013/C 38/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische and M. Velardo, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent); and Council of the European Union (represented by: A.F. Jensen and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the appeal to the extent that it is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 in so far as that judgment dismisses the claims for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 November 2004 because that decision determines Mr Harald Mische’s grade to be A*6; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the appeal to the extent that it is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 in so far as that judgment dismisses the claims for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 November 2004 because that decision determines Mr Harald Mische’s grade to be A*6;

| 2. | The appeal is dismissed as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The appeal is dismissed as to the remainder;

| 3. | Mr Harald Mische shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Harald Mische shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings;

| 4. | The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/25

---

Order of the General Court of 3 December 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-464/12 P (R)) (1)

(Appeal - Order made at first instance in interim proceedings rejecting an application for suspension of operation of the contested decision - Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of sums which he claims were unjustly deducted from his allowance)

2013/C 38/44

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Re:

Appeal seeking the setting aside of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/25

---

Action brought on 12 November 2012 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Fronsac SW and Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)

(Case T-511/12)

2013/C 38/45

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Refrigue-confecções para o frio, Lda (Pinhal Novo, Portugal) (represented by: C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fronsac SW and Sixty International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 August 2012 in Case R 2353/2010-2, insofar as that decision upheld the opposition to registration of the mark at issue ‘Refrigue for Cold’ for all the contested goods in Classes 18 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 August 2012 in Case R 2353/2010-2, insofar as that decision upheld the opposition to registration of the mark at issue ‘Refrigue for Cold’ for all the contested goods in Classes 18 and 25;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Refrigue for cold’, for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 — Trade mark application No 5 486 725

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fronsac SW and Sixty International SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘RefrigiWear’ and national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘This RefrigiWear’, for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part and application for registration dismissed in part

Pleas in law:

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

—

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

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

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/25

---

Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)

(Case T-536/12)

2013/C 38/46

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aroa Bodegas, SL (Zurukoain, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2012 in Case R 1845/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2012 in Case R 1845/2010-4;

| — | annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2010 (opposition B1509499); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2010 (opposition B1509499);

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘aroa’ for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 276 297

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Muga, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with word element ‘aro’ for goods in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part

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

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/26

---

Action brought on 13 December 2012 — Optilingua holding SA v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)

(Case T-538/12)

2013/C 38/47

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Optilingua holding SA (Epalinges, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michele Esposito (Cava de’ Tirreni SA, Italy)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2012 in Case R 444/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2012 in Case R 444/2011-1;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Figurative mark including the word element ‘ALPHATRAD’ for services in Classes 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 617 316

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Esposito

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation is upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal is dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/26

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Cementos Molins v Commission

(Case T-424/11) (1)

2013/C 38/48

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/27

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)

(Case T-32/12) (1)

2013/C 38/49

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/27

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Elegant Target Development and Others v Council

(Case T-90/12) (1)

2013/C 38/50

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/28

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Q v Commission

(Case F-52/05 RENV)

(Civil service - Referral back to Tribunal after setting aside - Administration’s duty to provide assistance - Psychological harassment - Provisional removal from post - Reparation for non-material damage - Career development reviews - Justified absences on the ground of sickness - Failure to take into account)

2013/C 38/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Q (Domsjö, Sweden) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially D. Martin, B. Eggers and V. Joris, subsequently by V. Joris and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Civil service — First, annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing the request for assistance submitted by the applicant under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations concerning psychological harassment to which she claims to have been subject and an application for damages and, secondly, annulment of her career development review for 2003 (formerly T-252/05) — Case T-80/09 P referred back after appeal

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the career development reviews drawn up for the periods from 1 January to 31 October and from 1 November to 31 December respectively; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the career development reviews drawn up for the periods from 1 January to 31 October and from 1 November to 31 December respectively;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 to Q; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 to Q;

| 3. | Declares that the European Commission must bear its own costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and in the two sets of proceedings before the Tribunal and orders the European Commission to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by Q in the two sets of proceedings before the Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European Commission must bear its own costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and in the two sets of proceedings before the Tribunal and orders the European Commission to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by Q in the two sets of proceedings before the Tribunal;

| 4. | Declares that Q must bear her own costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and one quarter of her costs incurred in the two sets of proceedings before the Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that Q must bear her own costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and one quarter of her costs incurred in the two sets of proceedings before the Tribunal.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/28

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-41/06 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Invalidity - Retirement on the grounds of invalidity - Composition of the Invalidity Committee - Validity - Conditions)

2013/C 38/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Referral back after setting aside — Civil service — First, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to retire the applicant on grounds of invalidity as well as a series of acts related to that decision and, second, a claim for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Cases F-41/06, F-41/06 RENV and T-20/09 P. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Cases F-41/06, F-41/06 RENV and T-20/09 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 54.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/29

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Z v Court of Justice

(Case F-88/09 and F-48/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reassignment - Interests of the service - General rule of correspondence between the grade and the post - Rights of the defence - Psychological harassment - Article 12 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Principle of sound administration - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Written warning - Rights of the defence and principle of the right to be heard)

2013/C 38/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: initially by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers, subsequently by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant in the interest of the service to another directorate and an order that the defendant pay compensation for non-material loss.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10;

| 2. | Orders Z to bear three-quarters of his own costs in Case F-88/09 and to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case F-48/10; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Z to bear three-quarters of his own costs in Case F-88/09 and to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case F-48/10;

| 3. | Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay a quarter of those incurred by Z in Case F-88/09. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay a quarter of those incurred by Z in Case F-88/09.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 80.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/29

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Maria Concetta Cerafogli v ECB

(Case F-43/10) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the ECB - Complaint of psychological harassment - Administrative inquiry - Access to the file of the inquiry - Report on the inquiry - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 38/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: P. Embley and F. Feyerbacher, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

The annulment of the decision of the ECB rejecting the applicant’s complaints of discrimination and damage to her dignity caused by the conduct of her management and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Declares that Mrs Cerafogli must bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs of the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mrs Cerafogli must bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs of the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 56.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/29

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Trentea v FRA

(Case F-112/10) (1)

(Civil service - FRA staff - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Rejection of an application)

2013/C 38/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cornelia Trentea (Vienna, Austria) (represented by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Civil service — First, the claim for annulment of the defendant’s decisions rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of administrative assistant in the field of Finance and Procurement and appointing another candidate to that post. Secondly, the claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Ms Trentea must bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Trentea must bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 43.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Psarras v ENISA

(Case F-118/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Assignment - Reassignment - Interest of the service - Leave on personal grounds)

2013/C 38/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aristidis Psarras (Heraklion, Greece) (represented initially by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers, and subsequently by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (represented by: E. Maurage, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Civil service — Firstly, application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant for the Agency and to appoint another person to that post. Secondly, application for payment to the applicant of a sum by way of compensation for the loss suffered owing to the contested acts and the harassment of which he claims to have been a victim.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 7 February 2010 of the Board of the European Network and Information Security Agency to dismiss Mr Psarras from his duties as accountant, with immediate effect, and to appoint Mr X, budget officer, to the post as account for a unlimited term, and the decision of 1 March 2010 adopted as a consequence by the Executive Director reassigning Mr Psarras to new duties; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 7 February 2010 of the Board of the European Network and Information Security Agency to dismiss Mr Psarras from his duties as accountant, with immediate effect, and to appoint Mr X, budget officer, to the post as account for a unlimited term, and the decision of 1 March 2010 adopted as a consequence by the Executive Director reassigning Mr Psarras to new duties;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Network and Information Security Agency to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr Psarras. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Network and Information Security Agency to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr Psarras.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011, p. 34.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — BW v Commission

(Case F-2/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Probationary official - Not established at the end of the probationary period - Statement of reasons on which the decision to dismiss a probationary official is based - Rights of the defence)

2013/C 38/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, S. Bonté and A. Blot, lawyers, subsequently by H. Soland, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and P. Pecho, Agents, subsequently by J. Baquero Cruz, Agent)

Re:

Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period and compensation for the loss suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BW to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BW to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011, p. 36.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Grazyte v Commission

(Case F-76/11) (1)

(Civil Service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Ten-year reference period - Starting point - Expiry point - Periods of service for an international organisation disregarded - Application by analogy with the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation)

2013/C 38/58

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Diana Grazyte (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Guarino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, Agent and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, then V. Joris, Agent and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing the applicant’s claims for expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms. Grazyte to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms. Grazyte to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 29.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Van Neyghem v Council

(Case F-77/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Promotion year 2007 - Refusal of promotion - Annulment - Implementing measures - Fresh comparative examination of the merits)

2013/C 38/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kris Van Neyghem (Tienen, Belgium) (represented by: M. Verlando, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision adopted in implementation of the judgment in Case F-53/08 rejecting the applicant’s application for promotion to grade AST 7 in promotion year 2007 and the application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of those incurred by Mr Van Neyghem; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of those incurred by Mr Van Neyghem;

| 3. | Orders Mr Van Neyghem to bear three-quarters of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Van Neyghem to bear three-quarters of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 40.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Lebedef and Others v Commission

(Case F-110/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - First subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Corrective coefficient - Act adversely affecting an official - Equal treatment)

2013/C 38/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Lebedef and Others (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months to the extent that they contain no correction of the adjustment of remunerations taking account of the corrective coefficient for their place of employment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Messrs Lebedef, Jones and Gonzales Gonzales and Mrs Lebedef-Caponi to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Messrs Lebedef, Jones and Gonzales Gonzales and Mrs Lebedef-Caponi to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 26.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/32

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Bourtembourg v Commission

(Case F-6/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Concept of habitual residence - Permanent or habitual centre of interests - Temporary residence for the purpose of study - Place where professional activity is pursued - Fixed term employment relationship)

2013/C 38/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Julien Bourtembourg (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Dony, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and V. Joris, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 24 May 2011 refusing to grant Mr Bourtembourg the expatriation allowance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 24 May 2011 refusing to grant Mr Bourtembourg the expatriation allowance;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bourtembourg. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bourtembourg.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 22.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/32

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-70/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Appraisal procedure for 2008 - Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation - Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned - Consultation of the ad hoc group - Designation under the Staff Regulations - Designation for union purposes - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Mr Lebedef must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Lebedef must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 52.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/32

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-109/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Appraisal procedure for 2009 - Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation - Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned - Designation under the Staff Regulations - Designation for union purposes - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Mr Lebedef must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Lebedef must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 26.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 — Ghigna v Commission

(Case F-27/12) (1)

2013/C 38/64

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 22.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2012 — Dekker v Europol

(Case F-69/12) (1)

2013/C 38/65

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 17.

---

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012 — Parikka v SEAE

(Case F-70/12) (1)

2013/C 38/66

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 29.

---