# Official Journal C 215/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.215.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 215 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5627 July 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.215.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 215

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5627 July 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 215/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 207, 20.7.2013 | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 215/03 | Conduct of the activity of the General Court between 1 and 16 September 2013 | 2 |
| 2013/C 215/02 | Assignment of Judges to Chambers | 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 215/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 207, 20.7.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

General Court

2013/C 215/03

Conduct of the activity of the General Court between 1 and 16 September 2013

2

2013/C 215/02

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

2

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 215/04 | Case C-170/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 5 April 2013 — Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH | 5 |
| 2013/C 215/05 | Case C-226/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic | 6 |
| 2013/C 215/06 | Case C-245/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic | 6 |
| 2013/C 215/07 | Case C-247/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2013 — Rudolf Reznicek v Hellenic Republic | 6 |
| 2013/C 215/08 | Case C-258/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda v Instituto da Segurança Social, IP | 7 |
| 2013/C 215/09 | Case C-262/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2013 — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 7 |
| 2013/C 215/10 | Case C-269/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2013 by Acino AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 Acino AG (formerly Acino Pharma GmbH) v European Commission | 8 |
| 2013/C 215/11 | Case C-273/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2013 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 27 February 2013 in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission | 8 |
| 2013/C 215/12 | Case C-283/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-607/11: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission | 9 |
| 2013/C 215/13 | Case C-284/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-64/12: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission | 10 |
| 2013/C 215/14 | Case C-292/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 22 March 2013 in Case T-571/10 Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Impexmetal | 11 |
| 2013/C 215/15 | Case C-298/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant | 11 |
| 2013/C 215/16 | Case C-307/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 5 June 2013 — Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg v Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren | 12 |
| 2013/C 215/17 | Case C-316/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2013 — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon | 13 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 215/18 | Case T-266/13: Action brought on 16 May 2013 — Brainlab v OHIM (Curve) | 14 |
| 2013/C 215/19 | Case T-267/13: Action brought on 17 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Gaffashion (BAUSS) | 14 |
| 2013/C 215/20 | Case T-271/13: Action brought on 22 May 2013 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARÍA ORO) | 15 |
| 2013/C 215/21 | Case T-281/13: Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX) | 15 |
| 2013/C 215/22 | Case T-297/13: Action brought on 29 May 2013 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland/OHIM — Belron Hungary (United Autoglas) | 16 |
| 2013/C 215/23 | Case T-298/13: Action brought on 3 June 2013 — LemonAid Beverages/OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Lemonaid) | 16 |
| 2013/C 215/24 | Case T-299/13: Action brought on 31 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA) | 17 |
| 2013/C 215/25 | Case T-301/13: Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE) | 17 |
| 2013/C 215/26 | Case T-303/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council | 18 |
| 2013/C 215/27 | Case T-320/13: Action brought on 13 June 2013 — DelSolar (Wujiang) v Commission | 19 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2013/C 215/28 | Case F-9/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission | 20 |
| 2013/C 215/29 | Case F-49/13: Action brought on 22 May 2013 — ZZ v Council | 20 |
| 2013/C 215/30 | Case F-53/13: Action brought on 27 May 2013 — ZZ v EEAS | 20 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 215/04

Case C-170/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 5 April 2013 — Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH

5

2013/C 215/05

Case C-226/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic

6

2013/C 215/06

Case C-245/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic

6

2013/C 215/07

Case C-247/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2013 — Rudolf Reznicek v Hellenic Republic

6

2013/C 215/08

Case C-258/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda v Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

7

2013/C 215/09

Case C-262/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2013 — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

7

2013/C 215/10

Case C-269/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2013 by Acino AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 Acino AG (formerly Acino Pharma GmbH) v European Commission

8

2013/C 215/11

Case C-273/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2013 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 27 February 2013 in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission

8

2013/C 215/12

Case C-283/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-607/11: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission

9

2013/C 215/13

Case C-284/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-64/12: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission

10

2013/C 215/14

Case C-292/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 22 March 2013 in Case T-571/10 Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Impexmetal

11

2013/C 215/15

Case C-298/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant

11

2013/C 215/16

Case C-307/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 5 June 2013 — Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg v Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren

12

2013/C 215/17

Case C-316/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2013 — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon

13

General Court

2013/C 215/18

Case T-266/13: Action brought on 16 May 2013 — Brainlab v OHIM (Curve)

14

2013/C 215/19

Case T-267/13: Action brought on 17 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Gaffashion (BAUSS)

14

2013/C 215/20

Case T-271/13: Action brought on 22 May 2013 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARÍA ORO)

15

2013/C 215/21

Case T-281/13: Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX)

15

2013/C 215/22

Case T-297/13: Action brought on 29 May 2013 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland/OHIM — Belron Hungary (United Autoglas)

16

2013/C 215/23

Case T-298/13: Action brought on 3 June 2013 — LemonAid Beverages/OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Lemonaid)

16

2013/C 215/24

Case T-299/13: Action brought on 31 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA)

17

2013/C 215/25

Case T-301/13: Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE)

17

2013/C 215/26

Case T-303/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council

18

2013/C 215/27

Case T-320/13: Action brought on 13 June 2013 — DelSolar (Wujiang) v Commission

19

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2013/C 215/28

Case F-9/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission

20

2013/C 215/29

Case F-49/13: Action brought on 22 May 2013 — ZZ v Council

20

2013/C 215/30

Case F-53/13: Action brought on 27 May 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

20

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/1

---

2013/C 215/01

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

OJ C 207, 20.7.2013

Past publications

OJ C 189, 29.6.2013

OJ C 178, 22.6.2013

OJ C 171, 15.6.2013

OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/2

---

Conduct of the activity of the General Court between 1 and 16 September 2013

2013/C 215/02

At its Plenary Meeting of 4 July 2013, the General Court took note of the fact that the taking of the oath before the Court of Justice by the new Members of the General Court will not take place until 16 September 2013. Consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, until the new Members of the General Court take up their duties:

| — | the President of the General Court will be Mr Jaeger; |
| --- | --- |

—

the President of the General Court will be Mr Jaeger;

| — | the Presidents of the Chambers of five or three Judges will be Mr Azizi, Mr Forwood, Mr Czúcz, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Dittrich, Mr Truchot and Mr Kanninen; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Presidents of the Chambers of five or three Judges will be Mr Azizi, Mr Forwood, Mr Czúcz, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Dittrich, Mr Truchot and Mr Kanninen;

| — | the decisions of 14 September 2010 on the organisation of the General Court (OJ 2010 C 288, p. 2), on the plenary session and on the composition of the Grand Chamber (OJ 2010 C 288, p. 4), the decision of 20 September 2010 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers, last amended on 4 July 2013 (OJ 2013 C 215, p. 2), the decisions of 6 July 2011 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers and on the composition of the Appeal Chamber (OJ 2011 C 232, p. 2), and the decision of 4 July 2012 on the designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures (OJ 2012 C 235, p. 2) will continue to apply. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decisions of 14 September 2010 on the organisation of the General Court (OJ 2010 C 288, p. 2), on the plenary session and on the composition of the Grand Chamber (OJ 2010 C 288, p. 4), the decision of 20 September 2010 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers, last amended on 4 July 2013 (OJ 2013 C 215, p. 2), the decisions of 6 July 2011 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers and on the composition of the Appeal Chamber (OJ 2011 C 232, p. 2), and the decision of 4 July 2012 on the designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures (OJ 2012 C 235, p. 2) will continue to apply.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/2

---

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

2013/C 215/03

On 4 July 2013, the Plenary Meeting of the General Court decided, following the entry into office of Judge Tomljenović, to amend the decisions of the Plenary Meetings of 20 September 2010, (1)26 October 2010, (2)29 November 2010, (3)20 September 2011, (4)25 November 2011, (5)16 May 2012, (6)17 September 2012, (7)9 October 2012, (8)29 November 2012 (9) and 18 March 2013 (10) on the assignment of Judges to Chambers.

For the period from 4 July 2013 to 31 August 2013, the assignment of Judges to Chambers is as follows:

| | First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

  Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Gratsias, Ms Kancheva and Mr Buttigieg, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Gratsias, Ms Kancheva and Mr Buttigieg, Judges.

| | First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

  Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber;






  (a) | Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Ms Kancheva, Judges; |
| --- | --- | --- |

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber;

(a)

Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Ms Kancheva, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Buttigieg, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Buttigieg, Judges;

| (c) | Ms Kancheva and Mr Buttigieg, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Ms Kancheva and Mr Buttigieg, Judges.

| | Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

  Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Prek and Mr Schwarcz, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Prek and Mr Schwarcz, Judges.

| | Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber;

| | Mr Dehousse, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Mr Dehousse, Judge;

| | Mr Schwarcz, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Schwarcz, Judge.

| | Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

  Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr Gratsias, Ms Kancheva and Mr Buttigieg, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr Gratsias, Ms Kancheva and Mr Buttigieg, Judges.

| | Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;

| | Ms Labucka, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Labucka, Judge;

| | Mr Gratsias, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Gratsias, Judge.

| | Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

  Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Ms Jürimäe, Mr O’Higgins, Mr Van der Woude and Ms Tomljenović, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Ms Jürimäe, Mr O’Higgins, Mr Van der Woude and Ms Tomljenović, Judges.

| | Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber;

| | Ms Jürimäe, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Jürimäe, Judge;

| | Mr Van der Woude, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Van der Woude, Judge.

| | Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

  Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Ms Jürimäe, Mr O’Higgins, Mr Van der Woude and Ms Tomljenović, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Ms Jürimäe, Mr O’Higgins, Mr Van der Woude and Ms Tomljenović, Judges.

| | Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

  Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber;






  (a) | Mr Vadapalas and Mr O’Higgins, Judges; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber;

(a)

Mr Vadapalas and Mr O’Higgins, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Vadapalas and Ms Tomljenović, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Vadapalas and Ms Tomljenović, Judges;

| (c) | Mr O’Higgins and Ms Tomljenović, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Mr O’Higgins and Ms Tomljenović, Judges.

| | Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

  Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Mr Popescu, Mr Berardis and Mr Wetter, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Mr Popescu, Mr Berardis and Mr Wetter, Judges.

| | Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

  Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber;






  (a) | Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Berardis, Judges; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber;

(a)

Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Berardis, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Wetter, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Wetter, Judges;

| (c) | Mr Berardis and Mr Wetter, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Mr Berardis and Mr Wetter, Judges.

| | Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

  Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Prek and Mr Schwarcz, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Prek and Mr Schwarcz, Judges.

| | Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber;

| | Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge;

| | Mr Prek, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Prek, Judge.

| | Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

  Mr Truchot, President of the Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Mr Popescu, Mr Berardis and Mr Wetter, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Truchot, President of the Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Mr Popescu, Mr Berardis and Mr Wetter, Judges.

| | Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Truchot, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Truchot, President of the Chamber;

| | Ms Martins Ribeiro, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Martins Ribeiro, Judge;

| | Mr Popsecu, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Popsecu, Judge.

For the period from 4 July 2013 until 31 August 2013:

| — | in the First Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the First Chamber initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and a Judge from the Third Chamber sitting with three Judges. The latter, who shall not be the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the First Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the First Chamber initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and a Judge from the Third Chamber sitting with three Judges. The latter, who shall not be the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

| — | in the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Third Chamber initially hearing the case and two Judges of the First Chamber sitting with four Judges. The latter two Judges, who shall not include the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Third Chamber initially hearing the case and two Judges of the First Chamber sitting with four Judges. The latter two Judges, who shall not include the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

| — | in the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Fourth Chamber initially hearing the case and two Judges of the Fifth Chamber sitting with four Judges. The latter two Judges, who shall not include the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Fourth Chamber initially hearing the case and two Judges of the Fifth Chamber sitting with four Judges. The latter two Judges, who shall not include the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

| — | in the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Fifth Chamber initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and a Judge from the Fourth Chamber sitting with three Judges. The latter, who shall not be the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Fifth Chamber initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and a Judge from the Fourth Chamber sitting with three Judges. The latter, who shall not be the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

| — | in the Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Sixth Chamber initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and a Judge from the Eighth Chamber sitting with three Judges. The latter, who shall not be the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Sixth Chamber initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and a Judge from the Eighth Chamber sitting with three Judges. The latter, who shall not be the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

| — | in the Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Eighth Chamber initially hearing the case and two Judges of the Sixth Chamber sitting with four Judges. The latter two Judges, who shall not include the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to form the extended composition shall be the other two Judges of the Eighth Chamber initially hearing the case and two Judges of the Sixth Chamber sitting with four Judges. The latter two Judges, who shall not include the President of the Chamber, shall be nominated in accordance with the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

| — | in the First Chamber sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges referred to in (a), (b) and (c), depending on the composition to which the Judge Rapporteur is assigned. For cases in which the President is the Judge Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges of each of those compositions in the order of registration of the cases, without prejudice to the connexity of the cases; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the First Chamber sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges referred to in (a), (b) and (c), depending on the composition to which the Judge Rapporteur is assigned. For cases in which the President is the Judge Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges of each of those compositions in the order of registration of the cases, without prejudice to the connexity of the cases;

| — | in the Fifth Chamber sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges referred to in (a), (b) and (c), depending on the composition to which the Judge Rapporteur is assigned. For cases in which the President is the Judge Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges of each of those compositions in the order of registration of the cases, without prejudice to the connexity of the cases; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Fifth Chamber sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges referred to in (a), (b) and (c), depending on the composition to which the Judge Rapporteur is assigned. For cases in which the President is the Judge Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges of each of those compositions in the order of registration of the cases, without prejudice to the connexity of the cases;

| — | in the Sixth Chamber sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges referred to in (a), (b) and (c), depending on the composition to which the Judge Rapporteur is assigned. For cases in which the President is the Judge Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges of each of those compositions in the order of registration of the cases, without prejudice to the connexity of the cases. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Sixth Chamber sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges referred to in (a), (b) and (c), depending on the composition to which the Judge Rapporteur is assigned. For cases in which the President is the Judge Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber shall sit successively with the Judges of each of those compositions in the order of registration of the cases, without prejudice to the connexity of the cases.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 2.

(2)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010, p. 5.

(3)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010, p. 2.

(4)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011, p. 2.

(5)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011, p. 5.

(6)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012, p. 2.

(7)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012, p. 2.

(8)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012, p. 2.

(9)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013, p. 3.

(10)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013, p. 2.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 5 April 2013 — Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-170/13)

2013/C 215/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

Defendants: ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the proprietor of a standard-essential patent who informs a standardisation body that he is willing to grant any third party a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms abuse his dominant market position if he brings an action for an injunction against a patent infringer although the infringer has declared that he is willing to negotiate concerning such a licence?
  or
  is an abuse of the dominant market position to be presumed only where the infringer has submitted to the proprietor of a standard-essential patent an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement which the patentee cannot refuse without unfairly impeding the infringer or breaching the prohibition of discrimination, and the infringer fulfils his contractual obligations for acts of use already performed in anticipation of the licence to be granted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the proprietor of a standard-essential patent who informs a standardisation body that he is willing to grant any third party a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms abuse his dominant market position if he brings an action for an injunction against a patent infringer although the infringer has declared that he is willing to negotiate concerning such a licence?

or

is an abuse of the dominant market position to be presumed only where the infringer has submitted to the proprietor of a standard-essential patent an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement which the patentee cannot refuse without unfairly impeding the infringer or breaching the prohibition of discrimination, and the infringer fulfils his contractual obligations for acts of use already performed in anticipation of the licence to be granted?

| 2. | If abuse of a dominant market position is already to be presumed as a consequence of the infringer’s willingness to negotiate:
  Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to the willingness to negotiate? In particular, can willingness to negotiate be presumed where the patent infringer has merely stated (orally) in a general way that that he is prepared to enter into negotiations, or must the infringer already have entered into negotiations by, for example, submitting specific conditions upon which he is prepared to conclude a licensing agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If abuse of a dominant market position is already to be presumed as a consequence of the infringer’s willingness to negotiate:

Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to the willingness to negotiate? In particular, can willingness to negotiate be presumed where the patent infringer has merely stated (orally) in a general way that that he is prepared to enter into negotiations, or must the infringer already have entered into negotiations by, for example, submitting specific conditions upon which he is prepared to conclude a licensing agreement?

| 3. | If the submission of an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement is a prerequisite for abuse of a dominant market position:
  Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to that offer? Must the offer contain all the provisions which are normally included in licensing agreements in the field of technology in question? In particular, may the offer be made subject to the condition that the standard-essential patent is actually used and/or is shown to be valid? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the submission of an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement is a prerequisite for abuse of a dominant market position:

Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to that offer? Must the offer contain all the provisions which are normally included in licensing agreements in the field of technology in question? In particular, may the offer be made subject to the condition that the standard-essential patent is actually used and/or is shown to be valid?

| 4. | If the fulfilment of the infringer’s obligations arising from the licence that is to be granted is a prerequisite for the abuse of a dominant market position:
  Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular requirements with regard to those acts of fulfilment? Is the infringer particularly required to render an account for past acts of use and/or to pay royalties? May an obligation to pay royalties be discharged, if necessary, by depositing a security? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the fulfilment of the infringer’s obligations arising from the licence that is to be granted is a prerequisite for the abuse of a dominant market position:

Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular requirements with regard to those acts of fulfilment? Is the infringer particularly required to render an account for past acts of use and/or to pay royalties? May an obligation to pay royalties be discharged, if necessary, by depositing a security?

| 5. | Do the conditions under which the abuse of a dominant position by the proprietor of a standard-essential patent is to be presumed apply also to an action on the ground of other claims (for rendering of accounts, recall of products, damages) arising from a patent infringement? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do the conditions under which the abuse of a dominant position by the proprietor of a standard-essential patent is to be presumed apply also to an action on the ground of other claims (for rendering of accounts, recall of products, damages) arising from a patent infringement?

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-226/13)

2013/C 215/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stefan Fahnenbrock

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG & Co. KG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-245/13)

2013/C 215/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Holger Priestoph, Matteo Antonio Priestoph, Pia Antonia Priestoph

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG, in the securities account of the applicants, and in respect of which the applicants had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicants — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2013 — Rudolf Reznicek v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-247/13)

2013/C 215/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rudolf Reznicek

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of Gries und Heissel Bankiers AG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda v Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

(Case C-258/13)

2013/C 215/08

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Varas Cíveis de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda

Defendant: Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

Questions referred

Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) which lays down the right to effective legal protection preclude national legislation that prohibits legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from obtaining legal aid?

Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be construed as having ensured the right to effective judicial protection, where the domestic law of the Member State, whilst excluding legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from receiving legal aid, automatically grants them an exemption from the costs and charges relating to legal proceedings where they are insolvent or in receivership?

---

(1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2013 — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-262/13)

2013/C 215/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ekkehard Aleweld

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004 (1) to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004 (1) to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired?

| 3. | Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help?

---

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

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/8

---

Appeal brought on 16 May 2013 by Acino AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 Acino AG (formerly Acino Pharma GmbH) v European Commission

(Case C-269/13 P)

2013/C 215/10

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Acino AG (represented by: R. Buchner and E. Burk, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 for infringement of European Union law and annul Commission Decisions C(2010) 2203, C(2010) 2205, C(2010) 2210 and C(2010) 2218 of 29 March 2010 and Decisions C(2010) 6430, C(2010) 6432, C(2010) 6434 and C(2010) 6435 of 16 September 2010 concerning the medicinal products Clopidogrel Acino — Clopidogrel, Clopidogrel ratiopharm — Clopidogrel Hexal — Clopidogrel and Clopidogrel ratiopharm GmbH — Clopidogrel; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 for infringement of European Union law and annul Commission Decisions C(2010) 2203, C(2010) 2205, C(2010) 2210 and C(2010) 2218 of 29 March 2010 and Decisions C(2010) 6430, C(2010) 6432, C(2010) 6434 and C(2010) 6435 of 16 September 2010 concerning the medicinal products Clopidogrel Acino — Clopidogrel, Clopidogrel ratiopharm — Clopidogrel Hexal — Clopidogrel and Clopidogrel ratiopharm GmbH — Clopidogrel;

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

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant raises five grounds in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal the appellant alleges an infringement and wrongful application of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) in conjunction with Articles 116 and 117 of Directive (EC) No 2001/83 (2) and the precautionary principle. It claims that the General Court wrongly considered that the infringements of the principles and guidelines relating to good manufacturing practice for medicinal products (GMP) relied on in the contested decisions essentially amounted to an unrebuttable presumption of the potential existence of insufficiencies in the qualitative and quantitative composition of the medicinal products.

The second ground of appeal relates to an erroneous legal assessment of the facts established by the General Court. The General Court failed to recognise that, in relying exclusively on the ‘lack of confidence’ resulting from the infringements of the GMP, the Commission infringed its duty of due diligence and its duty to state reasons since it failed to furnish either serious or conclusive evidence of quantitative or qualitative deficiencies in the medicinal products.

The third ground of appeal alleges an erroneous application of the principle of proportionality. The appellant claims that it furnished evidence that any endangerment to health from the medicinal products could be ruled out, with the result, in particular, that the amendment to the product authorisation, with retroactive effect, and the product recall ordered by the Commission were neither necessary nor proportionate.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges an erroneous review of the Commission’s margin of discretion. The appellant alleges that, as a result of the erroneous finding that the GMP rules are ‘absolute’ in nature, the General Court wrongly concluded that the Commission did not clearly exceed the limits of its powers by basing its decisions solely on the irrevocable ‘lack of confidence’.

By its final ground of appeal the appellant alleges an infringement of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 81(1) of Regulation No 726/2004/EC. In the grounds for its decision the Commission did not address at all the evidence furnished by the appellant, with the result that the decisions are formerly incomplete and unlawful.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

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

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/8

---

Appeal brought on 17 May 2013 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 27 February 2013 in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-273/13 P)

2013/C 215/11

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered on 27 February 2013 by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered on 27 February 2013 by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission;

| — | annul Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 (notified under document No C(2010) 1317) 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 63 of 12.03.2010, p. 7), in so far as that decision excludes from Community financing the amounts of PLN 279 794 442,15 and EUR 25 583 996,81 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 (notified under document No C(2010) 1317) 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 63 of 12.03.2010, p. 7), in so far as that decision excludes from Community financing the amounts of PLN 279 794 442,15 and EUR 25 583 996,81 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland sets out the following grounds contesting the judgment under appeal:

| 1. | Ground of appeal alleging a misinterpretation of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 by reason of the General Court’s assumption that that provision requires the introduction of a fully vectorised LPIS-GIS system (system for identifying parcels of agricultural land on the basis of a computer-assisted geographical information system) or of an equivalent system, even though a full vectorisation is not necessary for the purpose of satisfying the system standards envisaged in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Ground of appeal alleging a misinterpretation of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 by reason of the General Court’s assumption that that provision requires the introduction of a fully vectorised LPIS-GIS system (system for identifying parcels of agricultural land on the basis of a computer-assisted geographical information system) or of an equivalent system, even though a full vectorisation is not necessary for the purpose of satisfying the system standards envisaged in that provision.

| 2. | Ground of appeal alleging a misinterpretation of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 by reason of the General Court’s assumption that the penalties for an intentional breach are to be imposed even if the intentional nature of the recipient’s actions has not been conclusively established. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ground of appeal alleging a misinterpretation of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 by reason of the General Court’s assumption that the penalties for an intentional breach are to be imposed even if the intentional nature of the recipient’s actions has not been conclusively established.

| 3. | Ground of appeal alleging inadequate grounds for the judgment under appeal. In the view of the Republic of Poland, the General Court failed to explain which of the substantive and formal requirements arising under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 had in fact not been met. The General Court also failed to establish to what extent the possibility of establishing the intentional nature of the action by way of judicial proceedings may have led to an incompatibility of the payment system introduced by the Polish authorities with the objectives of the common agricultural policy. Furthermore, in the view of the Republic of Poland, the General Court failed to explain how the calculations carried out by the Polish authorities as to the actual risks faced by the fund were inconsistent. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ground of appeal alleging inadequate grounds for the judgment under appeal. In the view of the Republic of Poland, the General Court failed to explain which of the substantive and formal requirements arising under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 had in fact not been met. The General Court also failed to establish to what extent the possibility of establishing the intentional nature of the action by way of judicial proceedings may have led to an incompatibility of the payment system introduced by the Polish authorities with the objectives of the common agricultural policy. Furthermore, in the view of the Republic of Poland, the General Court failed to explain how the calculations carried out by the Polish authorities as to the actual risks faced by the fund were inconsistent.

| 4. | Ground of appeal alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the right to equitable proceedings by reason of the failure to take account of evidence adduced by the Republic of Poland and by reason of the fact that the General Court went beyond the subject-matter of the dispute. The General Court failed to appraise the evidence and explanations relating to the system for determining eligibility for area aid submitted by the Republic of Poland and did not explain the standard for the scope of the investigation in Opole Province (Województwo opolskie). Furthermore, the General Court extended its examination beyond the scope of what had constituted the subject-matter of the Commission’s complaints and beyond the basis on which the Commission had adopted the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Ground of appeal alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the right to equitable proceedings by reason of the failure to take account of evidence adduced by the Republic of Poland and by reason of the fact that the General Court went beyond the subject-matter of the dispute. The General Court failed to appraise the evidence and explanations relating to the system for determining eligibility for area aid submitted by the Republic of Poland and did not explain the standard for the scope of the investigation in Opole Province (Województwo opolskie). Furthermore, the General Court extended its examination beyond the scope of what had constituted the subject-matter of the Commission’s complaints and beyond the basis on which the Commission had adopted the contested decision.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/9

---

Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-607/11: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission

(Case C-283/13 P)

2013/C 215/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France (represented by: F. Brunet, E. Paroche, avocats, E. Bitton, advocate)

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

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Order in so far as it declared that there was no need to adjudicate on Henkel’s head of claim of the action seeking the annulment of the contested decision before the General Court (paragraph 1 of the operative part of the Order); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Order in so far as it declared that there was no need to adjudicate on Henkel’s head of claim of the action seeking the annulment of the contested decision before the General Court (paragraph 1 of the operative part of the Order);

| — | Rue that Henkel’s action before the General Court is not devoid of purpose and is admissible, and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the appropriate facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rue that Henkel’s action before the General Court is not devoid of purpose and is admissible, and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the appropriate facts;

| — | Annul the Order in so far as it ordered Henkel to pay its own costs and to bear the Commission costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures in case T-607/11R (paragraph 4 of the operative part of the Order), and order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Order in so far as it ordered Henkel to pay its own costs and to bear the Commission costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures in case T-607/11R (paragraph 4 of the operative part of the Order), and order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal contains four pleas, by which the Appellants dispute the General Court's conclusion that they did not have an interest in pursuing their appeal before the General Court against the contested decision. The General Court indeed wrongly ruled that the contested decision became devoid of purpose following the ADLC's decision in which the ADLC considered that the transmission of the documents was not necessary in order to guarantee the respect of the Appellants’ rights of defense and that the documents were not relevant for the analysis of the case before the ADLC.

On the contrary, the Appellants claim that they retained a legal interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court because they need to rely on the documents in the French proceedings in order to prove that (i) the facts sanctioned in Case COMP/39.579 are the same or are at the very least closely related to the facts prosecuted in the French proceedings, which has a bearing on the Applicants’ leniency status in France; and (ii) Henkel’s insistence to be authorized to use the documents in the French proceedings should not be viewed as a leniency applicant’s lack of cooperation justifying a fine reduction of 25 % instead of 30 %, as the ADLC judged, but should be viewed as the exercise of a legitimate right and interest, namely, the exercise of the rights of defense.

This appeal is divided into four pleas:

| — | First, the General Court distorted the facts because it erroneously held that there was no other procedural step following the ADLC's decision, in which the documents could be reviewed, if the contested decision was annulled and the documents were transferred to the ADLC; |
| --- | --- |

—

First, the General Court distorted the facts because it erroneously held that there was no other procedural step following the ADLC's decision, in which the documents could be reviewed, if the contested decision was annulled and the documents were transferred to the ADLC;

| — | Second, the General Court distorted the facts by misinterpreting the real purpose of the request for the transmission of the documents, when it held that the purpose of the request was only to enable the ADLC to examine the documents, while its main purpose was to enable Henkel to exercise its rights of defense by discussing the documents in the French proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, the General Court distorted the facts by misinterpreting the real purpose of the request for the transmission of the documents, when it held that the purpose of the request was only to enable the ADLC to examine the documents, while its main purpose was to enable Henkel to exercise its rights of defense by discussing the documents in the French proceedings;

| — | Third, the Order is vitiated by a lack of reasoning because the General Court considered that Henkel had no interest in bringing proceedings without reviewing the arguments put forward by Henkel; |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, the Order is vitiated by a lack of reasoning because the General Court considered that Henkel had no interest in bringing proceedings without reviewing the arguments put forward by Henkel;

| — | Fourth, the General Court committed an error of law by failing to examine whether Henkel did not retain an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court so as to avoid a repetition of an illegal act. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth, the General Court committed an error of law by failing to examine whether Henkel did not retain an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court so as to avoid a repetition of an illegal act.

For each of these reasons, the Appellants respectfully request the Court to annul the Order.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/10

---

Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-64/12: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission

(Case C-284/13 P)

2013/C 215/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France (represented by: F. Brunet, E. Paroche, avocats, E. Bitton, advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Order in so far as it declared that Henkel’s head of claim of the action seeking the annulment of the contested decision before the General Court was inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Order in so far as it declared that Henkel’s head of claim of the action seeking the annulment of the contested decision before the General Court was inadmissible;

| — | rule that Henkel’s action before the General Court is not devoid of purpose and is admissible, and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the appropriate facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that Henkel’s action before the General Court is not devoid of purpose and is admissible, and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the appropriate facts;

| — | annul the Order in so far as it ordered Henkel to pay its own costs and to bear the Commission’s costs (paragraph 3 of the operative part of the Order), and order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Order in so far as it ordered Henkel to pay its own costs and to bear the Commission’s costs (paragraph 3 of the operative part of the Order), and order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal contains three pleas, by which the Appellants dispute the General Court’s conclusion that they did not have an interest in bringing their appeal before the General Court against the contested decision. The General Court indeed wrongly ruled that the contested decision became devoid of purpose following the ADLC's decision in which the ADLC considered that the transmission of the documents was not necessary in order to guarantee the respect of the Appellants’ rights of defense and that the documents were not relevant for the analysis of the case before the ADLC.

On the contrary, the Appellants claim that they had a legal interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court because it needs to rely on the documents in the French proceedings in order to prove that (i) the facts sanctioned in Case COMP/39.579 are the same or are at the very least closely related to the facts prosecuted in the French proceedings, which has a bearing on the Applicants’ leniency status in France; and (ii) Henkel’s insistence to be authorized to use the documents in the French proceedings should not be viewed as a leniency applicant's lack of cooperation justifying a fine reduction of 25 % instead of 30 %, as the ADLC judged, but should be viewed as the exercise of a legitimate right and interest, namely, the exercise of the rights of defense.

This appeal is divided into three pleas:

| — | First, the General Court distorted the facts because it erroneously held that there was no other procedural step following the ADLC's decision, in which the documents could be reviewed, if the contested decision was annulled and the documents were transferred to the ADLC; |
| --- | --- |

—

First, the General Court distorted the facts because it erroneously held that there was no other procedural step following the ADLC's decision, in which the documents could be reviewed, if the contested decision was annulled and the documents were transferred to the ADLC;

| — | Second, the Order is vitiated by a lack of reasoning because the General Court considered that Henkel had no interest in bringing proceedings without reviewing the arguments put forward by Henkel; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, the Order is vitiated by a lack of reasoning because the General Court considered that Henkel had no interest in bringing proceedings without reviewing the arguments put forward by Henkel; and

| — | Third, the General Court committed an error of law by failing to examine whether Henkel did not retain an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court so as to avoid a repetition of an illegal act. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, the General Court committed an error of law by failing to examine whether Henkel did not retain an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court so as to avoid a repetition of an illegal act.

For each of these reasons, the Appellants respectfully request the Court to annul the Order.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/11

---

Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 22 March 2013 in Case T-571/10 Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Impexmetal

(Case C-292/13 P)

2013/C 215/14

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. (represented by: P. Borowski, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Impexmetal S.A.

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment in its entirety and uphold the application of 16 December 2010 in its entirety by annulling the decision of 6 October 2010 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment in its entirety and uphold the application of 16 December 2010 in its entirety by annulling the decision of 6 October 2010 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

| — | in the event that this head of claim is not upheld, set aside the judgment in its entirety and refer the present case back to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that this head of claim is not upheld, set aside the judgment in its entirety and refer the present case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

| — | order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the appellant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and those incurred in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the appellant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and those incurred in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the General Court breached Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by applying that provision to factual circumstances not covered by it.

In the view of the appellant, the erroneous application of that provision is attributable to the General Court’s incorrect assumption that the appellant’s mark is similar to the older Community figurative mark of the intervener and that there is for that reason a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The General Court, it submits, failed to take account of the following facts:

| — | the similarity between the marks does not justify the assertion that this might be the source of a likelihood of confusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

the similarity between the marks does not justify the assertion that this might be the source of a likelihood of confusion;

| — | the appellant’s mark is a part of its commercial name and this name has been used long before the application for registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

the appellant’s mark is a part of its commercial name and this name has been used long before the application for registration;

| — | that mark is a historically well-founded designation of the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

that mark is a historically well-founded designation of the appellant;

| — | the marks in issue have for a long time co-existed peacefully on one and the same market. |
| --- | --- |

—

the marks in issue have for a long time co-existed peacefully on one and the same market.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant

(Case C-298/13)

2013/C 215/15

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Defendants: Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the court must of its own motion examine compliance with the provisions of the Directive and the national provisions resulting from it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the court must of its own motion examine compliance with the provisions of the Directive and the national provisions resulting from it?

| 2. | Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning that the creditor is deemed to have performed its pre-contractual obligations under the national law transposing the Directive if the creditor produces to the court only the credit agreement drawn up pursuant to Article 10 of the Directive, to the exclusion of any document showing compliance with the creditor’s pre-contractual obligations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning that the creditor is deemed to have performed its pre-contractual obligations under the national law transposing the Directive if the creditor produces to the court only the credit agreement drawn up pursuant to Article 10 of the Directive, to the exclusion of any document showing compliance with the creditor’s pre-contractual obligations?

| 3. | Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning that proof of the performance. of the creditor’s obligations in relation to the consumer, as laid down by the national law transposing the Directive, is not established without the production by the creditor to the court of the documents showing the nature of the information given to the consumer and the information obtained to assess his creditworthiness, without there being any need for the consumer to bear the burden of proof of those omissions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning that proof of the performance. of the creditor’s obligations in relation to the consumer, as laid down by the national law transposing the Directive, is not established without the production by the creditor to the court of the documents showing the nature of the information given to the consumer and the information obtained to assess his creditworthiness, without there being any need for the consumer to bear the burden of proof of those omissions?

| 4. | Does the creditor’s failure to perform the pre-contractual obligations of information and checking the consumer’s creditworthiness, provided for by the national law derived from Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market,? (2) |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the creditor’s failure to perform the pre-contractual obligations of information and checking the consumer’s creditworthiness, provided for by the national law derived from Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market,? (2)

| 5. | Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning, where appropriate in the light of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, that non-compliance with the pre-contractual information obligations or the obligation to check the consumer’s creditworthiness as required by the national law transposing the Directive, does not permit the creditor to recover the outstanding amounts from the borrower whose default may arise from the creditor’s failure to meet its obligations? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning, where appropriate in the light of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, that non-compliance with the pre-contractual information obligations or the obligation to check the consumer’s creditworthiness as required by the national law transposing the Directive, does not permit the creditor to recover the outstanding amounts from the borrower whose default may arise from the creditor’s failure to meet its obligations?

---

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

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 5 June 2013 — Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg v Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren

(Case C-307/13)

2013/C 215/16

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Helsingborgs tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg

Defendants: Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the shortening of a timetable for implementation from 1 May 2003 to 15 April 2003, as occurred on the introduction of paragraph 9 of the Djurskyddsförordningen (2003:105), give rise to an obligation on Sweden, as a Member State, to communicate the draft regulation again in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the shortening of a timetable for implementation from 1 May 2003 to 15 April 2003, as occurred on the introduction of paragraph 9 of the Djurskyddsförordningen (2003:105), give rise to an obligation on Sweden, as a Member State, to communicate the draft regulation again in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC?

| 2. | If the answer to question I is that it should have been communicated again, what are the effects in law of the fact that that was not done? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question I is that it should have been communicated again, what are the effects in law of the fact that that was not done?

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2013 — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon

(Case C-316/13)

2013/C 215/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Gérard Fenoll

Respondents in cassation: Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3 of Directive 89/391/EEC, (1) to which Article 1 of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003, (2) determining the scope thereof, refers, be interpreted as meaning that a person placed in a work rehabilitation centre can be classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that Article 3? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3 of Directive 89/391/EEC, (1) to which Article 1 of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003, (2) determining the scope thereof, refers, be interpreted as meaning that a person placed in a work rehabilitation centre can be classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that Article 3?

| 2. | Must Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as described in the previous question, can be classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that Article 31? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as described in the previous question, can be classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that Article 31?

| 3. | Can a person, such as described in the first question, rely directly on the rights conferred on her or him by the Charter in order to obtain an entitlement to paid leave if national legislation does not provide for any such entitlement, and must the national courts, in order to ensure that those rights are fully effective, set aside any contrary provision of national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a person, such as described in the first question, rely directly on the rights conferred on her or him by the Charter in order to obtain an entitlement to paid leave if national legislation does not provide for any such entitlement, and must the national courts, in order to ensure that those rights are fully effective, set aside any contrary provision of national law?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

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

---

General Court

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/14

---

Action brought on 16 May 2013 — Brainlab v OHIM (Curve)

(Case T-266/13)

2013/C 215/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by J. Bauer, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 March 2013 in Case R 2073/2012-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in registration procedure No 008608473; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 March 2013 in Case R 2073/2012-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in registration procedure No 008608473;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Curve’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 10, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8 608 473

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/14

---

Action brought on 17 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Gaffashion (BAUSS)

(Case T-267/13)

2013/C 215/19

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gaffashion — Comércio de Acessórios de Moda, Lda (Viana do Castelo, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2013 in Case R 2295/2011-2, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant, it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to grant in part the Community trade mark No 9 093 733‘BAUSS’ (word); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2013 in Case R 2295/2011-2, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant, it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to grant in part the Community trade mark No 9 093 733‘BAUSS’ (word);

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gaffashion — Comércio de Acessórios de Moda, Lda

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BAUSS’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 093 733

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks with word elements ‘BASS 3 TRES’, ‘BASS 10 DIEZ’ and ‘BASS 20 VEINTE’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/15

---

Action brought on 22 May 2013 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARÍA ORO)

(Case T-271/13)

2013/C 215/20

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Nutrexpa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 March 2013 in Case R 1285/2012-1, whereby it rejected the application for registration of Community figurative trade mark No 9 056 045‘Cuétara MARÍA ORO’ for ‘Preserved and dried fruits; preserved, dried and cooked vegetables’ (Class 29) and ‘Flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; biscuits’ (Class 30), which should consequently be registered by OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 March 2013 in Case R 1285/2012-1, whereby it rejected the application for registration of Community figurative trade mark No 9 056 045‘Cuétara MARÍA ORO’ for ‘Preserved and dried fruits; preserved, dried and cooked vegetables’ (Class 29) and ‘Flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; biscuits’ (Class 30), which should consequently be registered by OHIM;

| — | 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 ‘Cuétara MARÍA ORO’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Application for registration of Community trade mark No 9 056 045

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘ORO’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/15

---

Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX)

(Case T-281/13)

2013/C 215/21

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH (Springe, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2013 in Case R 2022/2011-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2013 in Case R 2022/2011-2;

| — | reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

| — | order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘METABIOMAX’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885261

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘metabiarex’ which has been registered under No 857721, for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/16

---

Action brought on 29 May 2013 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland/OHIM — Belron Hungary (United Autoglas)

(Case T-297/13)

2013/C 215/22

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Belron Hungary Kft — Zug Branch (Zug, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Dismiss the opposition filed by the intervener to the application for registration of the Community trademark ‘United Autoglas’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the opposition filed by the intervener to the application for registration of the Community trademark ‘United Autoglas’;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the board of Appeal;

| — | Order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘United Autoglas’ for goods and services in classes 1, 12 and 37 — Community trade mark registration No 6 025 498

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: United Kingdom and Polish trade mark registrations of figurative marks containing the word element ‘AUTOGLASS’ and the word marks ‘AUTOGLASS’ for goods and services in classes 12, 21 et 37

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/16

---

Action brought on 3 June 2013 — LemonAid Beverages/OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Lemonaid)

(Case T-298/13)

2013/C 215/23

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LemonAid Beverages GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Natzel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prêt à Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2013 (Case R 276/2012-2) by which the Second Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to declare the CTM No 007089444 invalid with regard to the contested goods in classes 32 and 33 and the corresponding decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case 4123 C); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2013 (Case R 276/2012-2) by which the Second Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to declare the CTM No 007089444 invalid with regard to the contested goods in classes 32 and 33 and the corresponding decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case 4123 C);

| — | Dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity dated 7 January 2010 against the CTM No 007089444 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity dated 7 January 2010 against the CTM No 007089444 in its entirety;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Lemonaid’– Community trade mark registration No 7 089 444

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(c) and 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1) in conjunction with 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/17

---

Action brought on 31 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA)

(Case T-299/13)

2013/C 215/24

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Azzedine Alaïa (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 March 2013 in Case R 819/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 March 2013 in Case R 819/2012-2;

| — | order both OHIM and Azzedine Alaïa to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order both OHIM and Azzedine Alaïa to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALIA’ for goods in Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 3 788 999

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Azzedine Alaïa

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International word mark ‘ALAÏA’ and Community figurative mark ‘ALAÏA PARIS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 35 as well as earlier non-registered trade mark ‘ALAÏA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

| — | Breach of Rules 20(6) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Rules 20(6) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95

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

—

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

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/17

---

Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE)

(Case T-301/13)

2013/C 215/25

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nordex Holding A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kleis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 2604/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 2604/2011-1;

| — | Annul the Cancellation Division’s decision of 21 October 2011 No 4892 C, which preceded the adoption of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Cancellation Division’s decision of 21 October 2011 No 4892 C, which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

| — | Order the Office to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 600 285

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

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

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark partially invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/18

---

Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council

(Case T-303/13)

2013/C 215/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Council of 21 March 2013 refusing to grant full access to document 15309/12 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as communicated to the applicant on 25 March 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘04/c/01/13’ (the Contested Decision); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Council of 21 March 2013 refusing to grant full access to document 15309/12 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as communicated to the applicant on 25 March 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘04/c/01/13’ (the Contested Decision); and

| — | Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(2) second indent and Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since the Contested Decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of such provisions, which relate to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process respectively, as:






  — | Firstly, the Council failed to demonstrate that disclosure of document 15309/12 prejudices its legal service’s ability to defend it in future legal proceedings, and undermines the legislative process; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(2) second indent and Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since the Contested Decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of such provisions, which relate to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process respectively, as:

—

Firstly, the Council failed to demonstrate that disclosure of document 15309/12 prejudices its legal service’s ability to defend it in future legal proceedings, and undermines the legislative process;

| — | Secondly, the Council failed to demonstrate that document 15309/12 is particularly sensitive and/or of a wide scope justifying the setting aside of the presumption favouring disclosure of legal opinions in the legislative context; |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Council failed to demonstrate that document 15309/12 is particularly sensitive and/or of a wide scope justifying the setting aside of the presumption favouring disclosure of legal opinions in the legislative context;

| — | Thirdly, the Council’s theory of harm is purely hypothetical. It is factually, as well as legally, unfounded considering that the content of the advice contained in document 15309/12, a consensus among Member States which in line with the legal service’s analysis, was public when the Contested Decision was taken; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Thirdly, the Council’s theory of harm is purely hypothetical. It is factually, as well as legally, unfounded considering that the content of the advice contained in document 15309/12, a consensus among Member States which in line with the legal service’s analysis, was public when the Contested Decision was taken; and

| — | Fourthly, the Council misapplied the overriding public interest test when invoking Article 4(3) first subparagraph when it considered only the perceived risks to its decision-making process associated to disclosure and not the positive effects of such disclosure, inter alia, for the legitimacy of the decision-making process and failed to apply the test at all when invoking Article 4(2) second indent. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourthly, the Council misapplied the overriding public interest test when invoking Article 4(3) first subparagraph when it considered only the perceived risks to its decision-making process associated to disclosure and not the positive effects of such disclosure, inter alia, for the legitimacy of the decision-making process and failed to apply the test at all when invoking Article 4(2) second indent.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 296 TFEU, as the Council did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 296 TFEU, as the Council did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/19

---

Action brought on 13 June 2013 — DelSolar (Wujiang) v Commission

(Case T-320/13)

2013/C 215/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd (Wujiang City, China) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 (1), in so far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 (1), in so far as it applies to the applicant;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has made a manifest error of law by amplifying the scope of third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) and reviewing alleged significant distortions which, because they have not been carried over from the former non-market economy system, they clearly fell outside the scope of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has made a manifest error of law by amplifying the scope of third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) and reviewing alleged significant distortions which, because they have not been carried over from the former non-market economy system, they clearly fell outside the scope of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the the European Commission has wrongly concluded that the production costs and overall financial situation of the applicant were subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system as provided in the third indent of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the the European Commission has wrongly concluded that the production costs and overall financial situation of the applicant were subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system as provided in the third indent of the Basic Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has made an error of assessment in light of the fact that neither the negligible subsidies received nor the preferential tax regime received by the applicant and its affiliate Delta Greentech (China) Co. Ltd. (jointly referred as ‘DelSolar Group’) were ‘carried over from the former non-market economy system’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has made an error of assessment in light of the fact that neither the negligible subsidies received nor the preferential tax regime received by the applicant and its affiliate Delta Greentech (China) Co. Ltd. (jointly referred as ‘DelSolar Group’) were ‘carried over from the former non-market economy system’.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission to reject the applicant's market economy treatment (‘MET’) request on the sole basis of a preferential tax regime and negligible subsidies is disproportionate and unnecessary. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission to reject the applicant's market economy treatment (‘MET’) request on the sole basis of a preferential tax regime and negligible subsidies is disproportionate and unnecessary.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5)

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/20

---

Action brought on 29 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-9/13)

2013/C 215/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to set off the sum corresponding to the costs it was ordered to pay by the General Court in Case T-176/04 against the sum which the applicant is required to pay pursuant to the order in Case T-241/03.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the note of 6 March 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the note of 6 March 2012;

| — | Annul the decision to effect recovery by offsetting the debt of EUR 1 600 owed by the Commission to the applicant against the sum of EUR 4 875 purportedly owed by the applicant to the Commission, which is denied; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to effect recovery by offsetting the debt of EUR 1 600 owed by the Commission to the applicant against the sum of EUR 4 875 purportedly owed by the applicant to the Commission, which is denied;

| — | Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 June 2012 sent by the applicant to the Commission and received by the latter at a date not later than 23 June 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 June 2012 sent by the applicant to the Commission and received by the latter at a date not later than 23 June 2012;

| — | Annul the note of 27 August 2012 received by the applicant on 9 October 2012, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the note of 27 August 2012 received by the applicant on 9 October 2012,

| — | Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant in respect of all the costs incurred in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant in respect of all the costs incurred in the present proceedings.

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/20

---

Action brought on 22 May 2013 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-49/13)

2013/C 215/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to take into consideration the application submitted by the applicant for a position available at the Council.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 17 January 2013 by the mobility department of the GSC refusing to take into consideration the application submitted by the applicant for position 2244 DGA 2A, confirmed, following the applicant’s complaint, by the mobility department’s decision of 12 February 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 17 January 2013 by the mobility department of the GSC refusing to take into consideration the application submitted by the applicant for position 2244 DGA 2A, confirmed, following the applicant’s complaint, by the mobility department’s decision of 12 February 2013;

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

—

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

---

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/20

---

Action brought on 27 May 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-53/13)

2013/C 215/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 in the 2012 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 in the 2012 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 in the 2012 promotion procedure;

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

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---