# Official Journal C 146/4 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 146 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 584 May 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 146

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 584 May 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2015/C 146/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2015/C 146/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2015/C 146/02 | Joined Cases C-464/13 and C-465/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Europäische Schule München v Silvana Oberto (C-464/13), Barbara O’Leary (C-465/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Statute of the European Schools — Competence of the Complaints Board of the European Schools to rule on a fixed-term employment contract entered into between a European school and a teacher not posted or seconded by a Member State) | 2 |
| 2015/C 146/03 | Case C-538/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — eVigilo Ltd v Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directives 89/665/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Principles of equal treatment and transparency — Connection between the successful tenderer and the contracting authority’s experts — Obligation to take that connection into account — Burden of proving bias on the part of an expert — Such bias having no effect on the final result of the evaluation — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Challenging the abstract award criteria — Those criteria clarified after the exhaustive reasons for the award of the contract had been communicated — Degree of the tenders’ conformity with the technical specifications as an evaluation criterion) | 3 |
| 2015/C 146/04 | Case C-577/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Supplementary protection certificate — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Medicinal products containing in whole or in part the same active ingredient — Medicinal products placed on the market in succession — Combination of active ingredients — Active ingredient previously marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient — Conditions for obtaining several certificates on the basis of the same patent — Modification of the active ingredients of a basic patent) | 4 |
| 2015/C 146/05 | Case C-594/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — go fair Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona (References for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(g) — Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to welfare and social security work — Concept of bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing — Temporary-work agency — Hiring out of qualified care workers — Exemption not allowed) | 4 |
| 2015/C 146/06 | Case C-628/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Jean-Bernard Lafonta v Autorité des marchés financiers (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2003/6/EC — Article 1, point (1) — Directive 2003/124/EC — Article 1(1) — Inside information — Concept of information of a precise nature — Potential effect in a particular direction on the prices of financial instruments) | 5 |
| 2015/C 146/07 | Case C-175/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Action against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling — No case pending before the court hearing that action — Manifest inadmissibility) | 6 |
| 2015/C 146/08 | Case C-494/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour including the word elements LIBERTE american blend on a blue background — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements La LIBERTAD — Refusal of registration | 6 |
| 2015/C 146/09 | Case C-495/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components LIBERTE american blend on a red background — Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark La LIBERTAD — Refusal of registration) | 7 |
| 2015/C 146/10 | Case C-496/13 P: Order of the Court of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components LIBERTE american blend on a red background — Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark La LIBERTAD — Refusal of registration) | 7 |
| 2015/C 146/11 | Joined Cases C-587/13 P and C-588/13 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA, Telefónica SA v European Commission (Appeals — Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation — Corporate tax provision which enables undertakings established in Spanish territory to write off the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a shareholding in undertakings which are not established in that territory — Decision declaring the State aid scheme incompatible with the internal market) | 8 |
| 2015/C 146/12 | Case C-621/13 P: Order of the Court of 11 February 2015 — Orange v European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Compensation for public service costs relating to the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network) | 8 |
| 2015/C 146/13 | Case C-624/13 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 February 2015 — Iliad SA, Free infrastructure, Free SAS v European Commission, French Republic, Republic of Poland, Département des Hauts-de-Seine (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — compensation for the costs of providing a public service for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network) | 9 |
| 2015/C 146/14 | Case C-688/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — proceedings brought by Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés SL, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Transfer of an undertaking — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Interpretation of Directive 2001/23/EC — Transferor the subject of insolvency proceedings — Guarantee that the transferee is not to be liable for certain debts of the undertaking transferred) | 9 |
| 2015/C 146/15 | Case C-68/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Competition — Concept of State aid — National legislation — Use of buildings for institutional purposes — Rent reduction — Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Need for a reply to the questions referred — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility | 10 |
| 2015/C 146/16 | Case C-296/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Interest-free loans, backed by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to operators in the cereals sector — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded) | 11 |
| 2015/C 146/17 | Case C-305/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare — Romania) — Sergiu Lucian Băbăşan v Inspectoratul Judtean de Politie Satu Mare (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation according to which prior authorisation is required for the organisation of a public meeting — Failure to implement EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice) | 11 |
| 2015/C 146/18 | Case C-374/14 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark HIPERDRIVE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) — General principle of equal treatment) | 12 |
| 2015/C 146/19 | Case C-23/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 20 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Andre | 12 |
| 2015/C 146/20 | Case C-43/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2015 by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2014 in Case T-595/13 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 13 |
| 2015/C 146/21 | Case C-46/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2015 — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda. (Ambisig) v AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal | 14 |
| 2015/C 146/22 | Case C-62/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-176/13 DTL Corporación v OHIM | 14 |
| 2015/C 146/23 | Case C-67/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mario Melis and Others v Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio | 15 |
| 2015/C 146/24 | Case C-68/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2015 — X; other party: Ministerraad | 16 |
| 2015/C 146/25 | Case C-79/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 December 2014 in Case T-400/10 Hamas v Council | 17 |
| 2015/C 146/26 | Case C-84/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 19 February 2015 — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 18 |
| 2015/C 146/27 | Case C-85/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2015 by Feralpi Holding SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-70/10 Feralpi v Commission | 18 |
| 2015/C 146/28 | Case C-86/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-92/10 Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission | 19 |
| 2015/C 146/29 | Case C-87/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-85/10 Alfa Acciai v Commission | 21 |
| 2015/C 146/30 | Case C-88/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-90/10 Ferriere Nord v Commission | 23 |
| 2015/C 146/31 | Case C-89/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-83/10 Riva Fire v Commission | 24 |
| 2015/C 146/32 | Case C-90/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Case T-544/08 Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission | 26 |
| 2015/C 146/33 | Case C-91/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane | 27 |
| 2015/C 146/34 | Case C-96/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects | 28 |
| 2015/C 146/35 | Case C-104/15: Action brought on 3 March 2015 — European Commission v Romania | 29 |
| 2015/C 146/36 | Case C-112/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S and Others v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen | 30 |
| 2015/C 146/37 | Case C-116/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union | 30 |
| 2015/C 146/38 | Case C-507/13: Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, intervener: European Commission | 31 |
| 2015/C 146/39 | Case C-56/14: Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA | 31 |
| 2015/C 146/40 | Case C-116/14: Order of the President of the Court of 10 December 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 32 |
| 2015/C 146/41 | Case C-225/14: Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Dieppe — France) — Facet SA v Jean Henri | 32 |
| 2015/C 146/42 | Case C-236/14: Order of the President of the Court of 20 January 2015 — European Commission v Ireland, intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | 32 |
| 2015/C 146/43 | Case C-412/14: Order of the President of the Court of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 32 |
| | General Court |
| 2015/C 146/44 | Case T-89/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission (State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen — Action for annulment — Letter sent to the complainants — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees — Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees — Undertaking in difficulty — Sale of public land — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons) | 33 |
| 2015/C 146/45 | Case T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Cahier and Others v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Prohibition for producers of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties from themselves distilling spirits from quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the quantity normally produced — Application of that legislation by national authorities) | 34 |
| 2015/C 146/46 | Case T-611/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa — Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 34 |
| 2015/C 146/47 | Case T-30/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — IDT Biologika v Commission (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply to Serbia of anti-rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Manifest error of assessment) | 35 |
| 2015/C 146/48 | Case T-466/12: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia — Refusal of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid — Calculation of the export price — Single economic entity — Calculation of the dumping margin — Application of a methodology different from that used in the original investigation — Change in circumstances — Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) | 36 |
| 2015/C 146/49 | Case T-250/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Naazneen Investments v OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark SMART WATER — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 36 |
| 2015/C 146/50 | Case T-384/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Intermark v OHIM — Coca-Cola (RIENERGY Cola) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark RIENERGY Cola — Earlier Community figurative mark Coca-Cola and earlier Community word mark COCA-COLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 37 |
| 2015/C 146/51 | Case T-412/13: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — Chin Haur Indonesia v Council (Dumping — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Circumvention — Failure to cooperate — Articles 13 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment) | 38 |
| 2015/C 146/52 | Case T-413/13: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — City Cycle Industries v Council (Dumping — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Circumvention — Failure to cooperate — Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Equal treatment — Access to the file) | 38 |
| 2015/C 146/53 | Case T-66/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council | 39 |
| 2015/C 146/54 | Case T-76/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015 — KENUP Foundation a.o./EIT | 40 |
| 2015/C 146/55 | Case T-118/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — Slovenia v Commission | 41 |
| 2015/C 146/56 | Case T-458/12: Order of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Générations futures v Commission | 42 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2015/C 146/57 | Case F-73/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 — AX v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Dismissal — Rights of the defence — Access to the disciplinary file — Access to information and documents on other divisions — Reasonable time — Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee — Advisory role of the Disciplinary Committee — Stricter disciplinary measure than that recommended — Obligation to state reasons — Management of a division — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality of the disciplinary measure — Extenuating circumstances — Aggravating circumstances — Objection of illegality) | 43 |
| 2015/C 146/58 | Case F-97/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Gyarmathy v FRA (Civil service — Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of candidature) | 43 |
| 2015/C 146/59 | Case F-24/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Rajala v OHIM (Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — General assessment of performance — Consistency) | 44 |
| 2015/C 146/60 | Case F-27/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — DK v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Official — Discipliary proceedings — Removal from post without reduction of entitlement to a pension — Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Pending criminal proceedings — The facts before the appointing authority and the court hearing the criminal proceedings the same) | 45 |
| 2015/C 146/61 | Case F-51/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Official — Promotion — Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits of all officials eligible for promotion — Officials proposed by the EEAS services and officials not proposed — Taking into account staff reports — Purely literal assessments) | 45 |
| 2015/C 146/62 | Case F-61/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 24 March 2015 — Maggiulli v Commission (Civil service — Promotion — 2013 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Consideration of comparative merits) | 46 |
| 2015/C 146/63 | Case F-58/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate) | 47 |
| 2015/C 146/64 | Case F-62/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate) | 47 |
| 2015/C 146/65 | Case F-65/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate) | 48 |
| 2015/C 146/66 | Case F-89/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate) | 48 |
| 2015/C 146/67 | Case F-90/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate) | 49 |
| 2015/C 146/68 | Case F-28/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 49 |
| 2015/C 146/69 | Case F-29/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Entreprise Commune ECSEL | 50 |
| 2015/C 146/70 | Case F-30/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS | 50 |
| 2015/C 146/71 | Case F-31/15: Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v Council | 51 |
| 2015/C 146/72 | Case F-32/15: Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council | 51 |
| 2015/C 146/73 | Case F-35/15: Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 52 |
| 2015/C 146/74 | Case F-36/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Justice | 52 |
| 2015/C 146/75 | Case F-97/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2015 — BU v EMA | 53 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 146/02

Joined Cases C-464/13 and C-465/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Europäische Schule München v Silvana Oberto (C-464/13), Barbara O’Leary (C-465/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Statute of the European Schools — Competence of the Complaints Board of the European Schools to rule on a fixed-term employment contract entered into between a European school and a teacher not posted or seconded by a Member State)

2

2015/C 146/03

Case C-538/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — eVigilo Ltd v Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directives 89/665/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Principles of equal treatment and transparency — Connection between the successful tenderer and the contracting authority’s experts — Obligation to take that connection into account — Burden of proving bias on the part of an expert — Such bias having no effect on the final result of the evaluation — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Challenging the abstract award criteria — Those criteria clarified after the exhaustive reasons for the award of the contract had been communicated — Degree of the tenders’ conformity with the technical specifications as an evaluation criterion)

3

2015/C 146/04

Case C-577/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Supplementary protection certificate — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Medicinal products containing in whole or in part the same active ingredient — Medicinal products placed on the market in succession — Combination of active ingredients — Active ingredient previously marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient — Conditions for obtaining several certificates on the basis of the same patent — Modification of the active ingredients of a basic patent)

4

2015/C 146/05

Case C-594/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — go fair Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona (References for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(g) — Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to welfare and social security work — Concept of bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing — Temporary-work agency — Hiring out of qualified care workers — Exemption not allowed)

4

2015/C 146/06

Case C-628/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Jean-Bernard Lafonta v Autorité des marchés financiers (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2003/6/EC — Article 1, point (1) — Directive 2003/124/EC — Article 1(1) — Inside information — Concept of information of a precise nature — Potential effect in a particular direction on the prices of financial instruments)

5

2015/C 146/07

Case C-175/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Action against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling — No case pending before the court hearing that action — Manifest inadmissibility)

Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ

Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee

6

2015/C 146/08

Case C-494/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour including the word elements LIBERTE american blend on a blue background — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements La LIBERTAD — Refusal of registration

6

2015/C 146/09

Case C-495/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components LIBERTE american blend on a red background — Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark La LIBERTAD — Refusal of registration)

7

2015/C 146/10

Case C-496/13 P: Order of the Court of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components LIBERTE american blend on a red background — Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark La LIBERTAD — Refusal of registration)

7

2015/C 146/11

Joined Cases C-587/13 P and C-588/13 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA, Telefónica SA v European Commission (Appeals — Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation — Corporate tax provision which enables undertakings established in Spanish territory to write off the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a shareholding in undertakings which are not established in that territory — Decision declaring the State aid scheme incompatible with the internal market)

8

2015/C 146/12

Case C-621/13 P: Order of the Court of 11 February 2015 — Orange v European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Compensation for public service costs relating to the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network)

8

2015/C 146/13

Case C-624/13 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 February 2015 — Iliad SA, Free infrastructure, Free SAS v European Commission, French Republic, Republic of Poland, Département des Hauts-de-Seine (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — compensation for the costs of providing a public service for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network)

9

2015/C 146/14

Case C-688/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — proceedings brought by Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés SL, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Transfer of an undertaking — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Interpretation of Directive 2001/23/EC — Transferor the subject of insolvency proceedings — Guarantee that the transferee is not to be liable for certain debts of the undertaking transferred)

9

2015/C 146/15

Case C-68/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Competition — Concept of State aid — National legislation — Use of buildings for institutional purposes — Rent reduction — Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Need for a reply to the questions referred — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility

10

2015/C 146/16

Case C-296/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Interest-free loans, backed by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to operators in the cereals sector — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

Hellenic Republic

European Commission

11

2015/C 146/17

Case C-305/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare — Romania) — Sergiu Lucian Băbăşan v Inspectoratul Judtean de Politie Satu Mare (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation according to which prior authorisation is required for the organisation of a public meeting — Failure to implement EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

11

2015/C 146/18

Case C-374/14 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark HIPERDRIVE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) — General principle of equal treatment)

Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH

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

12

2015/C 146/19

Case C-23/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 20 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Andre

12

2015/C 146/20

Case C-43/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2015 by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2014 in Case T-595/13 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH

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

13

2015/C 146/21

Case C-46/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2015 — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda. (Ambisig) v AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal

14

2015/C 146/22

Case C-62/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-176/13 DTL Corporación v OHIM

14

2015/C 146/23

Case C-67/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mario Melis and Others v Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio

15

2015/C 146/24

Case C-68/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2015 — X; other party: Ministerraad

16

2015/C 146/25

Case C-79/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 December 2014 in Case T-400/10 Hamas v Council

17

2015/C 146/26

Case C-84/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 19 February 2015 — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

18

2015/C 146/27

Case C-85/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2015 by Feralpi Holding SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-70/10 Feralpi v Commission

18

2015/C 146/28

Case C-86/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-92/10 Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

19

2015/C 146/29

Case C-87/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-85/10 Alfa Acciai v Commission

21

2015/C 146/30

Case C-88/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-90/10 Ferriere Nord v Commission

23

2015/C 146/31

Case C-89/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-83/10 Riva Fire v Commission

24

2015/C 146/32

Case C-90/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Case T-544/08 Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission

Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH

European Commission

26

2015/C 146/33

Case C-91/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

27

2015/C 146/34

Case C-96/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

28

2015/C 146/35

Case C-104/15: Action brought on 3 March 2015 — European Commission v Romania

29

2015/C 146/36

Case C-112/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S and Others v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

30

2015/C 146/37

Case C-116/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

30

2015/C 146/38

Case C-507/13: Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, intervener: European Commission

31

2015/C 146/39

Case C-56/14: Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA

31

2015/C 146/40

Case C-116/14: Order of the President of the Court of 10 December 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

32

2015/C 146/41

Case C-225/14: Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Dieppe — France) — Facet SA v Jean Henri

32

2015/C 146/42

Case C-236/14: Order of the President of the Court of 20 January 2015 — European Commission v Ireland, intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

32

2015/C 146/43

Case C-412/14: Order of the President of the Court of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

32

General Court

2015/C 146/44

Case T-89/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission (State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen — Action for annulment — Letter sent to the complainants — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees — Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees — Undertaking in difficulty — Sale of public land — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

33

2015/C 146/45

Case T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Cahier and Others v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Prohibition for producers of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties from themselves distilling spirits from quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the quantity normally produced — Application of that legislation by national authorities)

34

2015/C 146/46

Case T-611/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa — Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

34

2015/C 146/47

Case T-30/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — IDT Biologika v Commission (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply to Serbia of anti-rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Manifest error of assessment)

35

2015/C 146/48

Case T-466/12: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia — Refusal of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid — Calculation of the export price — Single economic entity — Calculation of the dumping margin — Application of a methodology different from that used in the original investigation — Change in circumstances — Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

36

2015/C 146/49

Case T-250/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Naazneen Investments v OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark SMART WATER — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

36

2015/C 146/50

Case T-384/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Intermark v OHIM — Coca-Cola (RIENERGY Cola) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark RIENERGY Cola — Earlier Community figurative mark Coca-Cola and earlier Community word mark COCA-COLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

37

2015/C 146/51

Case T-412/13: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — Chin Haur Indonesia v Council (Dumping — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Circumvention — Failure to cooperate — Articles 13 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

38

2015/C 146/52

Case T-413/13: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — City Cycle Industries v Council (Dumping — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Circumvention — Failure to cooperate — Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Equal treatment — Access to the file)

38

2015/C 146/53

Case T-66/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council

39

2015/C 146/54

Case T-76/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015 — KENUP Foundation a.o./EIT

40

2015/C 146/55

Case T-118/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — Slovenia v Commission

41

2015/C 146/56

Case T-458/12: Order of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Générations futures v Commission

42

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2015/C 146/57

Case F-73/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 — AX v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Dismissal — Rights of the defence — Access to the disciplinary file — Access to information and documents on other divisions — Reasonable time — Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee — Advisory role of the Disciplinary Committee — Stricter disciplinary measure than that recommended — Obligation to state reasons — Management of a division — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality of the disciplinary measure — Extenuating circumstances — Aggravating circumstances — Objection of illegality)

43

2015/C 146/58

Case F-97/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Gyarmathy v FRA (Civil service — Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of candidature)

43

2015/C 146/59

Case F-24/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Rajala v OHIM (Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — General assessment of performance — Consistency)

44

2015/C 146/60

Case F-27/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — DK v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Official — Discipliary proceedings — Removal from post without reduction of entitlement to a pension — Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Pending criminal proceedings — The facts before the appointing authority and the court hearing the criminal proceedings the same)

45

2015/C 146/61

Case F-51/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Official — Promotion — Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits of all officials eligible for promotion — Officials proposed by the EEAS services and officials not proposed — Taking into account staff reports — Purely literal assessments)

45

2015/C 146/62

Case F-61/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 24 March 2015 — Maggiulli v Commission (Civil service — Promotion — 2013 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Consideration of comparative merits)

46

2015/C 146/63

Case F-58/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate)

47

2015/C 146/64

Case F-62/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate)

47

2015/C 146/65

Case F-65/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate)

48

2015/C 146/66

Case F-89/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate)

48

2015/C 146/67

Case F-90/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate)

49

2015/C 146/68

Case F-28/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

49

2015/C 146/69

Case F-29/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Entreprise Commune ECSEL

50

2015/C 146/70

Case F-30/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

50

2015/C 146/71

Case F-31/15: Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v Council

51

2015/C 146/72

Case F-32/15: Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council

51

2015/C 146/73

Case F-35/15: Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

52

2015/C 146/74

Case F-36/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Justice

52

2015/C 146/75

Case F-97/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2015 — BU v EMA

53

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/1

---

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

(2015/C 146/01)

Last publication

OJ C 138, 27.4.2015

Past publications

OJ C 127, 20.4.2015

OJ C 118, 13.4.2015

OJ C 107, 30.3.2015

OJ C 96, 23.3.2015

OJ C 89, 16.3.2015

OJ C 81, 9.3.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Europäische Schule München v Silvana Oberto (C-464/13), Barbara O’Leary (C-465/13)

(Joined Cases C-464/13 and C-465/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Statute of the European Schools - Competence of the Complaints Board of the European Schools to rule on a fixed-term employment contract entered into between a European school and a teacher not posted or seconded by a Member State))

(2015/C 146/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Europäische Schule München

Defendants: Silvana Oberto (C-464/13), Barbara O’Leary (C-465/13)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, concluded in Luxembourg on 21 June 1994 between the Member States and the European Communities, must be interpreted as meaning that part-time teachers employed by a European school who are not seconded by the Member States are among the persons covered by that provision, unlike the administrative and ancillary staff, who are excluded from it. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, concluded in Luxembourg on 21 June 1994 between the Member States and the European Communities, must be interpreted as meaning that part-time teachers employed by a European school who are not seconded by the Member States are among the persons covered by that provision, unlike the administrative and ancillary staff, who are excluded from it.

| 2) | The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as not precluding an agreement concerning the fixed-term nature of the employment relationship, contained in the employment contract concluded between the school and the part-time teacher, from being regarded as constituting an act adversely affecting that part-time teacher. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as not precluding an agreement concerning the fixed-term nature of the employment relationship, contained in the employment contract concluded between the school and the part-time teacher, from being regarded as constituting an act adversely affecting that part-time teacher.

| 3) | The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as not precluding an act carried out by the headteacher of a European school in the exercise of his powers from coming, in principle, within the scope of that provision. Points 1.3, 3.2 and 3.4 of the Conditions of Employment for Part-time Teachers recruited between 1 September 1994 and 31 August 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning the legality of an agreement on limiting the duration of the employment relationship included in the employment contract concluded between a part-time teacher and that headteacher comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Complaints Board of the European Schools. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as not precluding an act carried out by the headteacher of a European school in the exercise of his powers from coming, in principle, within the scope of that provision. Points 1.3, 3.2 and 3.4 of the Conditions of Employment for Part-time Teachers recruited between 1 September 1994 and 31 August 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning the legality of an agreement on limiting the duration of the employment relationship included in the employment contract concluded between a part-time teacher and that headteacher comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Complaints Board of the European Schools.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — eVigilo Ltd v Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos

(Case C-538/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directives 89/665/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Principles of equal treatment and transparency - Connection between the successful tenderer and the contracting authority’s experts - Obligation to take that connection into account - Burden of proving bias on the part of an expert - Such bias having no effect on the final result of the evaluation - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Challenging the abstract award criteria - Those criteria clarified after the exhaustive reasons for the award of the contract had been communicated - Degree of the tenders’ conformity with the technical specifications as an evaluation criterion))

(2015/C 146/03)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: eVigilo Ltd

Defendant: Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos

supported by:‘NT Service’ UAB, ‘HNIT-Baltic’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Articles 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as not precluding a finding that the evaluation of the tenders is unlawful solely on the grounds that the tenderer has had significant connections with experts appointed by the contracting authority who evaluated the tenders. The contracting authority is, at all events, required to determine the existence of possible conflicts of interests and to take appropriate measures in order to prevent and detect conflicts of interests and remedy them. In the context of the examination of an action for annulment of an award decision on the ground that the experts were biased, the unsuccessful tenderer may not be required to provide tangible proof of the experts’ bias. It is, in principle, a matter of national law to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the competent administrative and judicial control authorities must take account of the fact that possible bias on the part of experts has had an effect on the decision to award the contract.
  The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and Articles 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18, must be interpreted as requiring a right to bring an action relating to the lawfulness of the tender procedure to be open, after the expiry of the period prescribed by national law, to reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderers who could understand the tender conditions only when the contracting authority, after evaluating the tenders, provided exhaustive information relating to the reasons for its decision. Such a right to bring an action may be exercised until the expiry of the period for bringing proceedings against the decision to award the contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Articles 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as not precluding a finding that the evaluation of the tenders is unlawful solely on the grounds that the tenderer has had significant connections with experts appointed by the contracting authority who evaluated the tenders. The contracting authority is, at all events, required to determine the existence of possible conflicts of interests and to take appropriate measures in order to prevent and detect conflicts of interests and remedy them. In the context of the examination of an action for annulment of an award decision on the ground that the experts were biased, the unsuccessful tenderer may not be required to provide tangible proof of the experts’ bias. It is, in principle, a matter of national law to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the competent administrative and judicial control authorities must take account of the fact that possible bias on the part of experts has had an effect on the decision to award the contract.

The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and Articles 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18, must be interpreted as requiring a right to bring an action relating to the lawfulness of the tender procedure to be open, after the expiry of the period prescribed by national law, to reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderers who could understand the tender conditions only when the contracting authority, after evaluating the tenders, provided exhaustive information relating to the reasons for its decision. Such a right to bring an action may be exercised until the expiry of the period for bringing proceedings against the decision to award the contract.

| 2. | Articles 2 and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as allowing, in principle, a contracting authority to use, as an evaluation criterion of tenders submitted by the tenderers for a public contract, the degree to which they are consistent with the requirements in the tender documentation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 2 and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as allowing, in principle, a contracting authority to use, as an evaluation criterion of tenders submitted by the tenderers for a public contract, the degree to which they are consistent with the requirements in the tender documentation.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-577/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Supplementary protection certificate - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Medicinal products containing in whole or in part the same active ingredient - Medicinal products placed on the market in succession - Combination of active ingredients - Active ingredient previously marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient - Conditions for obtaining several certificates on the basis of the same patent - Modification of the active ingredients of a basic patent))

(2015/C 146/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd

Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, where a basic patent includes a claim to a product comprising an active ingredient which constitutes the sole subject-matter of the invention, for which the holder of that patent has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate, as well as a subsequent claim to a product comprising a combination of that active ingredient and another substance, that provision precludes the holder from obtaining a second supplementary protection certificate for that combination.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — ‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

(Case C-594/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(g) - Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to welfare and social security work - Concept of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ - Temporary-work agency - Hiring out of qualified care workers - Exemption not allowed))

(2015/C 146/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that neither State-examined care workers who provide their services directly to persons in need of care nor a temporary-work agency which supplies such workers to establishments recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing come within the scope of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ contained in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Jean-Bernard Lafonta v Autorité des marchés financiers

(Case C-628/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2003/6/EC - Article 1, point (1) - Directive 2003/124/EC - Article 1(1) - Inside information - Concept of ‘information of a precise nature’ - Potential effect in a particular direction on the prices of financial instruments))

(2015/C 146/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jean-Bernard Lafonta

Respondent: Autorité des marchés financiers

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of point (1) of Article 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation, in order for information to be regarded as being of a precise nature for the purposes of those provisions, it need not be possible to infer from that information, with a sufficient degree of probability, that, once it is made public, its potential effect on the prices of the financial instruments concerned will be in a particular direction.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/6

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee

(Case C-175/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Action against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling - No case pending before the court hearing that action - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 146/07)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ

Defendant: Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee

Third party: Eesti Vabariigi Siseministeerium

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Riigikohus (Estonia), by decision of 21 March 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/6

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

(Case C-494/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark in colour including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a blue background - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ - Refusal of registration)

(2015/C 146/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent), Villiger Söhne GmbH (represented by: B. Pikolin, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/7

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

(Case C-495/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a red background - Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ - Refusal of registration))

(2015/C 146/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schultz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), Villiger Söhne GmbH (represented by: B. Pikolin, Rechtsanwätin)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/7

---

Order of the Court of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

(Case C-496/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a red background - Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ - Refusal of registration))

(2015/C 146/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), Villiger Söhne GmbH (represented by: H. MacKenzie, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/8

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA, Telefónica SA v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-587/13 P and C-588/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation - Corporate tax provision which enables undertakings established in Spanish territory to write off the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a shareholding in undertakings which are not established in that territory - Decision declaring the State aid scheme incompatible with the internal market))

(2015/C 146/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA, Telefónica SA (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, abogados, and M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeals are dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeals are dismissed.

| 2. | Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA and Telefónica SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA and Telefónica SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/8

---

Order of the Court of 11 February 2015 — Orange v European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS

(Case C-621/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Compensation for public service costs relating to the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network))

(2015/C 146/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Orange S.A. (represented by: D. Gillet and H. Viane, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromssky and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), French Republic (represented by: J. Bousin and M.D. Colas, Agents), Departement des Hauts-de-Seine (represented by: G. O’Mahony, avocat), Sequalum SAS (represented by: L. Feldman, avocat)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Orange S.A. is ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orange S.A. is ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/9

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 February 2015 — Iliad SA, Free infrastructure, Free SAS v European Commission, French Republic, Republic of Poland, Département des Hauts-de-Seine

(Case C-624/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - compensation for the costs of providing a public service for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network))

(2015/C 146/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Iliad SA, Free infrastructure SAS, Free SAS (represented by: T. Cabot, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, Agents), Republic of Poland, Département des Hauts-de-Seine (represented by: G. O’Mahony, avocat)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Iliad SA, Free Intrastructure SAS and Free SAS are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, the French Republic and the Département des Hauts-de-Seine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Iliad SA, Free Intrastructure SAS and Free SAS are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, the French Republic and the Département des Hauts-de-Seine.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/9

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — proceedings brought by Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés SL, in liquidation

(Case C-688/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Transfer of an undertaking - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Interpretation of Directive 2001/23/EC - Transferor the subject of insolvency proceedings - Guarantee that the transferee is not to be liable for certain debts of the undertaking transferred))

(2015/C 146/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés SL, in liquidation

Intervening parties: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | where, in the context of the transfer of an undertaking, the transferor is the subject of insolvency proceedings which are under the supervision of a competent public authority and where the Member State concerned has chosen to make use of Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/23, that provision does not preclude that Member State from providing, or permitting, that charges payable by the transferor, on the date of the transfer or the opening of the insolvency proceedings, as a result of contracts of employment or employment relationships — including charges relating to the statutory social security system — are not to be transferred to the transferee, provided that such proceedings ensure a level of protection for employees which is at least equivalent to that established by Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, but nor is that Member State prevented from providing that such charges are to be borne by the transferee, even where the transferor is insolvent, |
| --- | --- |

—

where, in the context of the transfer of an undertaking, the transferor is the subject of insolvency proceedings which are under the supervision of a competent public authority and where the Member State concerned has chosen to make use of Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/23, that provision does not preclude that Member State from providing, or permitting, that charges payable by the transferor, on the date of the transfer or the opening of the insolvency proceedings, as a result of contracts of employment or employment relationships — including charges relating to the statutory social security system — are not to be transferred to the transferee, provided that such proceedings ensure a level of protection for employees which is at least equivalent to that established by Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, but nor is that Member State prevented from providing that such charges are to be borne by the transferee, even where the transferor is insolvent,

| — | subject to Article 3(4)(b) of that directive, Directive 2001/23 does not lay down any obligations relating to the charges payable by the transferor as a result of contracts of employment or employment relationships which have come to an end before the date of transfer, but nor does it preclude national legislation under which such charges may be transferred to the transferee. |
| --- | --- |

—

subject to Article 3(4)(b) of that directive, Directive 2001/23 does not lay down any obligations relating to the charges payable by the transferor as a result of contracts of employment or employment relationships which have come to an end before the date of transfer, but nor does it preclude national legislation under which such charges may be transferred to the transferee.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/10

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc

(Case C-68/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU - Competition - Concept of ‘State aid’ - National legislation - Use of buildings for institutional purposes - Rent reduction - Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Need for a reply to the questions referred - Lack of information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2015/C 146/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Aosta

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Equitalia Nord SpA

Defendant: CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy), by decision of 12 December 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/11

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-296/14) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Interest-free loans, backed by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to operators in the cereals sector - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded))

(2015/C 146/16)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A Bouchagiar, D. Triantafyllou and P. Němečková, Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1)

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2) | The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/11

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare — Romania) — Sergiu Lucian Băbăşan v Inspectoratul Judtean de Politie Satu Mare

(Case C-305/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - National legislation according to which prior authorisation is required for the organisation of a public meeting - Failure to implement EU law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice))

(2015/C 146/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sergiu Lucian Băbăşan

Defendant: Inspectoratul Judtean de Politie Satu Mare

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) by its decision of 7 March 2014.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/12

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-374/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181 - Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark HIPERDRIVE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) - General principle of equal treatment))

(2015/C 146/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH (represented by S. Walter, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Operative part of the order

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

1)

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2) | Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 06.10.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 20 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Andre

(Case C-23/15)

(2015/C 146/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Party to the main proceedings

Sébastien Andre

By Order of 19 March 2015, the Court (Fourth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/13

---

Appeal brought on 4 February 2015 by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2014 in Case T-595/13 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-43/15 P)

(2015/C 146/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2014 in Case T-595/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2014 in Case T-595/13;

| — | annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2013 and 3 December 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2013 and 3 December 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1);

in the alternative,

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

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court by which that court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2013 in opposition proceedings R 1176/2012-1.

The appellant relies upon two grounds of appeal:

First, it alleges an infringement of Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), in that the General Court failed to observe the fact that the Board of Appeal was not allowed to vary the decision of the Opposition Division to the detriment of the appellant, since no admissible complaint had been brought by the respondent and Article 8(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal does not provide for cross-appeals.

Second, the appellant relies on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. Where an earlier trade mark presents an easily recognisable alteration of a descriptive indication and the more recent trade mark itself contains that descriptive indication, even a high degree of similarity of the signs and identity of the goods cannot lead to a finding of a likelihood of confusion if the similarities of the signs are limited to the descriptive indication and relate only to goods which are described by that indication.

---

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

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2015 — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda. (Ambisig) v AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal

(Case C-46/15)

(2015/C 146/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda. (Ambisig)

Defendant: AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal

Other party: Indice — ICT & Management, Lda

Questions referred

| 1. | Since Portuguese legislation does not regulate the matters covered by Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, is that provision directly applicable in the Portuguese legal order in the sense that it confers on individuals a right that they may assert against contracting authorities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Since Portuguese legislation does not regulate the matters covered by Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, is that provision directly applicable in the Portuguese legal order in the sense that it confers on individuals a right that they may assert against contracting authorities?

| 2. | Must Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the application of rules laid down by a contracting authority which do not allow an economic operator to provide evidence of the provision of services by a declaration signed by that operator, unless the latter proves that it is impossible or very difficult to obtain a declaration from the private purchaser? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the application of rules laid down by a contracting authority which do not allow an economic operator to provide evidence of the provision of services by a declaration signed by that operator, unless the latter proves that it is impossible or very difficult to obtain a declaration from the private purchaser?

| 3. | Must Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the application of rules laid down by the contracting authority, which, on pain of exclusion, require the private purchaser’s declaration to contain authentication of the signature by a notary, lawyer or other competent entity? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the application of rules laid down by the contracting authority, which, on pain of exclusion, require the private purchaser’s declaration to contain authentication of the signature by a notary, lawyer or other competent entity?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/14

---

Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-176/13 DTL Corporación v OHIM

(Case C-62/15 P)

(2015/C 146/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: DTL Corporación, S.L. (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part, in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37, the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4 dismissing the appeal brought against the rejection of the application for Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part, in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37, the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4 dismissing the appeal brought against the rejection of the application for Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’;

| — | order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this appeal to pay the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this appeal to pay the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of EU law by the General Court: The Fourth Board of Appeal changed, in its decision of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4, the grounds for the decision of the Opposition Division for rejecting Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’ in respect of Classes 9 and 37. The Opposition Division had based that rejection on the similarity of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37 with the goods of the opposing mark in Class 7. For its part, the Board of Appeal upheld the rejection, but on the ground of the similarity of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37 with the services of the opposing mark in Class 40. In so doing, the Board of Appeal infringed Article 64(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark because the services of the opposing mark in Class 40 had never been put forward in opposition to the goods and services of the trade mark applied for in Classes 9 and 37 (although they were put forward against the services in other classes). In addition, the decision infringed Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark since the party now appealing was not invited to submit observations on that change to the grounds. The judgment under appeal maintains that the proceedings were legally correct, thereby infringing EU law (Articles 64(1) and 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark).

---

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

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mario Melis and Others v Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio

(Case C-67/15)

(2015/C 146/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mario Melis, Tavolara Beach Sas, Dionigi Piredda, Claudio Del Giudice for Sib Gallura

Defendants: Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, as laid down, respectively, in Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 106 TFEU, preclude national legislation under which the period of validity of concessions of economically significant State-owned maritime property is repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, as laid down, respectively, in Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 106 TFEU, preclude national legislation under which the period of validity of concessions of economically significant State-owned maritime property is repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts?

| 2. | Does Article 12 of Directive 2006/123 (1) preclude a national provision, such as Article 1(18) of Decree Law No 194 of 30 December 2009, converted into law by Law No 25 of 26 February 2010, as amended and supplemented, which permits the automatic extension of existing concessions of State-owned maritime property for tourist and leisure-oriented business activities to 31 December 2015, or to 31 December 2020, pursuant to Article 34k of Decree Law No 179 of 18 October 2012, inserted by Article 1(1) of Law No 221 of 17 December 2012 converting the aforesaid decree law into law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 12 of Directive 2006/123 (1) preclude a national provision, such as Article 1(18) of Decree Law No 194 of 30 December 2009, converted into law by Law No 25 of 26 February 2010, as amended and supplemented, which permits the automatic extension of existing concessions of State-owned maritime property for tourist and leisure-oriented business activities to 31 December 2015, or to 31 December 2020, pursuant to Article 34k of Decree Law No 179 of 18 October 2012, inserted by Article 1(1) of Law No 221 of 17 December 2012 converting the aforesaid decree law into law?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2015 — X; other party: Ministerraad

(Case C-68/15)

(2015/C 146/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Ministerraad

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national rules under which:






  (a) | companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian permanent establishment are subject to a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, irrespective of whether profits have flowed from the Belgian permanent establishment to the main establishment, whereas companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian subsidiary are not subject to such a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, irrespective of whether or not the subsidiary has distributed a dividend; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national rules under which:

(a)

companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian permanent establishment are subject to a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, irrespective of whether profits have flowed from the Belgian permanent establishment to the main establishment, whereas companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian subsidiary are not subject to such a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, irrespective of whether or not the subsidiary has distributed a dividend;

| (b) | companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian permanent establishment are, if they retain the Belgian profits in full, subject to a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, whereas Belgian companies are not subject to such a tax if they retain their profits in full? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian permanent establishment are, if they retain the Belgian profits in full, subject to a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, whereas Belgian companies are not subject to such a tax if they retain their profits in full?

| 2. | Must Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU (1) of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States be interpreted as meaning that there is withholding tax in the case where a provision of national law requires that a tax be imposed on a distribution of profits by a subsidiary to its parent company in that, in the same taxable period, dividends are distributed and the taxable profits are wholly or partly reduced by the deduction for risk capital and/or by tax losses carried forward, whereas under national law the profits would not be taxable if they remained with the subsidiary and were not distributed to the parent company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU (1) of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States be interpreted as meaning that there is withholding tax in the case where a provision of national law requires that a tax be imposed on a distribution of profits by a subsidiary to its parent company in that, in the same taxable period, dividends are distributed and the taxable profits are wholly or partly reduced by the deduction for risk capital and/or by tax losses carried forward, whereas under national law the profits would not be taxable if they remained with the subsidiary and were not distributed to the parent company?

| 3. | Must Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/96/EU be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a tax is levied on the distribution of dividends if that legislation has the effect that, in the case where a company distributes a received dividend in a year subsequent to the year in which it received that dividend itself, it is taxed on a portion of the dividend which exceeds the threshold laid down in the aforementioned Article 4(3) of the Directive, whereas that is not the case if that company redistributes a dividend in the year in which it receives it? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/96/EU be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a tax is levied on the distribution of dividends if that legislation has the effect that, in the case where a company distributes a received dividend in a year subsequent to the year in which it received that dividend itself, it is taxed on a portion of the dividend which exceeds the threshold laid down in the aforementioned Article 4(3) of the Directive, whereas that is not the case if that company redistributes a dividend in the year in which it receives it?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/17

---

Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 December 2014 in Case T-400/10 Hamas v Council

(Case C-79/15 P)

(2015/C 146/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hamas, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-400/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-400/10;

| — | give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal;
  and |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal;

and

| — | order the applicant in Case T-400/10 to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant in Case T-400/10 to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law.

First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the use by the Council of information in the public domain for the periodic review of the measures adopted.

Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in not concluding that the decisions of the competent authorities of the United States of America on the one hand and of the United Kingdom on the other constituted a sufficient basis to include Hamas on the list.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 19 February 2015 — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-84/15)

(2015/C 146/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sonos Europe BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should CN headings 8517, 8518, 8519 and 8527 be interpreted as meaning that a product such as that described in this judgment (the ZonePlayer), which receives digital information and without storing it (streaming) reproduces it in the form of amplified sound by means of five (integrated) loudspeakers and/or forwards it to other devices in the local area network, is amenable to classification under one or more of those headings and, if so, which heading(s)? Alternatively, should CN heading 8543 be interpreted as meaning that a device such as the ZonePlayer ought to be classified under that heading as an electrical machine or apparatus with an individual function?

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/18

---

Appeal brought on 19 February 2015 by Feralpi Holding SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-70/10 Feralpi v Commission

(Case C-85/15 P)

(2015/C 146/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Feralpi Holding SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Feralpi claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of 9 December 2014 insofar as it dismissed Feralpi’s action in Case T-70/10, and, consequently:






  (i) | annul the contested decision in full or in part; and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of 9 December 2014 insofar as it dismissed Feralpi’s action in Case T-70/10, and, consequently:

(i)

annul the contested decision in full or in part; and/or

| (ii) | cancel, or at least reduce the fine imposed on Feralpi by the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

cancel, or at least reduce the fine imposed on Feralpi by the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of 9 December 2014 insofar as it dismissed Feralpi’s action in Case T-70/10 and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits in the light of the guidance provided by the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of 9 December 2014 insofar as it dismissed Feralpi’s action in Case T-70/10 and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits in the light of the guidance provided by the Court of Justice;

| — | in any event, reduce the fine imposed on Feralpi by the contested decision by reason of the excessive length of time taken for the General Court to process Case T-70/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, reduce the fine imposed on Feralpi by the contested decision by reason of the excessive length of time taken for the General Court to process Case T-70/10;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Feralpi puts forward six grounds of appeal, alleging that:

| — | the General Court erred in law in finding that no infringement of the principle of collegiality took place when the contested decision was adopted; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in law in finding that no infringement of the principle of collegiality took place when the contested decision was adopted;

| — | the General Court infringed Article 10 of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in finding that it was permissible for the Commission to adopt the contested decision without sending Feralpi a statement of objections and without providing that company with a guarantee of being able to exercise its rights of the defence; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court infringed Article 10 of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in finding that it was permissible for the Commission to adopt the contested decision without sending Feralpi a statement of objections and without providing that company with a guarantee of being able to exercise its rights of the defence;

| — | the General Court infringed Article 6 ECHR and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) in finding that the period between the delivery of the judgment of 25 October 2007 in Case T-77/03 and the adoption of the contested decision had not been of an excessive duration; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court infringed Article 6 ECHR and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) in finding that the period between the delivery of the judgment of 25 October 2007 in Case T-77/03 and the adoption of the contested decision had not been of an excessive duration;

| — | the General Court misapplied Article 65 ECSC and, in the present case, the concepts of agreements and concerted practices referred to in that provision and the related principles regarding the burden of proof in finding that both a single and continuous agreement on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars and Feralpi’s involvement in that agreement had been established for the periods 1989-1992 and 1993-1995. In that context, the General Court failed to take into account the particular nature of the ECSC legal framework applicable to the concrete reinforcing bars sector. The General Court also manifestly distorted the meaning and scope of the essential evidence adduced. In this respect, the statement of reasons is both inadequate and illogical; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court misapplied Article 65 ECSC and, in the present case, the concepts of agreements and concerted practices referred to in that provision and the related principles regarding the burden of proof in finding that both a single and continuous agreement on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars and Feralpi’s involvement in that agreement had been established for the periods 1989-1992 and 1993-1995. In that context, the General Court failed to take into account the particular nature of the ECSC legal framework applicable to the concrete reinforcing bars sector. The General Court also manifestly distorted the meaning and scope of the essential evidence adduced. In this respect, the statement of reasons is both inadequate and illogical;

| — | the General Court infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in deciding not to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to rectify the error made by the Commission in its assessment of the precise importance of Feralpi and the other companies involved in the agreement for the purposes of determining the basic amount of the fine; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in deciding not to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to rectify the error made by the Commission in its assessment of the precise importance of Feralpi and the other companies involved in the agreement for the purposes of determining the basic amount of the fine;

| — | the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, as Feralpi’s case was not heard within a reasonable time. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, as Feralpi’s case was not heard within a reasonable time.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/19

---

Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-92/10 Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

(Case C-86/15 P)

(2015/C 146/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (represented by: D.M. Fosselard, avocat, D. Slater, Solicitor, and A. Duron, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal for the reasons indicated below; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal for the reasons indicated below; and

| — | giving a final ruling pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, annul the contested decision to the extent that it concerns the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

giving a final ruling pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, annul the contested decision to the extent that it concerns the appellants;

| — | in the alternative, in the event of a finding by the Court that there are no grounds for setting aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety, reduce the fine imposed on the appellants for the reasons set out below; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event of a finding by the Court that there are no grounds for setting aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety, reduce the fine imposed on the appellants for the reasons set out below;

| — | in the further alternative, in the event that the Court does not give a final ruling on the case, reserve the costs and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, in the event that the Court does not give a final ruling on the case, reserve the costs and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| — | lastly, pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

lastly, pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants rely on the following grounds of appeal:

By the first ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court infringed Article 10 of Regulation No 773/2004 (1). In particular, the General Court held that the Commission was entitled to readopt the decision contested in the proceedings at first instance (‘the contested decision’) without first having to issue a new statement of objections.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellants argue that the General Court infringed Article 14 of Regulation No 773/2004 in ruling that the Commission was entitled to readopt the contested decision on the basis of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) without giving the Member States’ representatives the possibility of hearing the undertakings directly.

By the third ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court infringed the principle of collegiality. The General Court held that the Commission was entitled to adopt the contested decision following a procedure in the course of which the College did not adopt the whole contested decision on a specific date, but instead adopted it in two parts on two different dates on the understanding that, together, those two parts could constitute a full decision.

By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants complain that there has been an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), as interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), in so far as the General Court infringed the appellants’ right to be heard within a reasonable time. Specifically, approximately three years elapsed between the closure of the written procedure and the General Court’s decision to open the oral procedure. A delay on that scale amounted to an infringement of the right, referred to in Article 47 of the Charter, to an effective remedy and an infringement of the right to be heard within a reasonable time. The infringement of Article 47 of the Charter is particularly serious in the circumstances, in view of the fact that the appellants had to wait more than 14 years for a court (the General Court) to resolve the dispute on the merits, the Commission’s initial decision having been annulled on procedural grounds after a procedure lasting around seven years.

By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants complain that there has been an infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. In particular, the appellants argue that the General Court disregarded the specific context of the ECSC Treaty and the duties of disclosure and non-discrimination imposed on undertakings in the context of that treaty, thereby misapplying the case-law of the Court relating to cartels. The appellants submit that the repeated publication over time of price lists not in alignment with the price proposed in the context of the cartel in question has had the effect of interrupting the concerted practice adopted by that cartel, whose objective was, according to the General Court, to fix minimum prices. Instead, the General Court held that it was necessary to distance themselves publicly even further.

By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, as interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the Convention, when it found that the length of the administrative procedure (that is to say, the procedure before the European Commission) was not excessive for the purposes of those provisions. In the present case, the administrative procedure took, in total, almost 54 months, including the initial procedure and the subsequent re-adoption procedure. In addition, the two or more years which were necessary for the Commission to readopt the contested decision appear excessive. The grounds stated by the General Court as justification for the length of the re-adoption procedure appear inadequate and contradictory, besides being manifestly inconsistent with the previous case-law of the General Court.

By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellants complain that there has been an infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of equal treatment. In particular, the Commission had subdivided the undertakings into groups in order to determine the basic fine to be applied to each undertaking, attempting — according to the contested decision — to maintain a proportionate relationship between the average market share of each group and the basic fine imposed on the individual undertakings belonging to that group. Although it subsequently acknowledged that the Commission had underestimated the average market share of one of those groups, with the result that the relationship of proportionality which the Commission had meant to maintain had not been maintained, the General Court did not find it necessary to re-establish that relationship.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/21

---

Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-85/10 Alfa Acciai v Commission

(Case C-87/15 P)

(2015/C 146/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Alfa Acciai SpA (represented by: D.M. Fosselard, avocat, D. Slater, Solicitor, and A. Duron, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal for the reasons indicated below; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal for the reasons indicated below; and

| — | giving a final ruling pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, annul the contested decision to the extent that it concerns the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

giving a final ruling pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, annul the contested decision to the extent that it concerns the appellant;

| — | in the alternative, in the event of a finding by the Court that there are no grounds for setting aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant for the reasons set out below; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event of a finding by the Court that there are no grounds for setting aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant for the reasons set out below;

| — | in the further alternative, in the event that the Court does not give a final ruling on the case, reserve the costs and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, in the event that the Court does not give a final ruling on the case, reserve the costs and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| — | lastly, pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

lastly, pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

By the first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed Article 10 of Regulation No 773/2004. (1) In particular, the General Court held that the Commission was entitled to readopt the decision contested in the proceedings at first instance (‘the contested decision’) without first having to issue a new statement of objections.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the General Court infringed Article 14 of Regulation No 773/2004 in ruling that the Commission was entitled to readopt the contested decision on the basis of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) without giving the Member States’ representatives the possibility of hearing the undertakings directly.

By the third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed the principle of collegiality. The General Court held that the Commission was entitled to adopt the contested decision following a procedure in the course of which the College did not adopt the whole contested decision on a specific date, but instead adopted it in two parts on two different dates on the understanding that, together, those two parts could constitute a full decision.

By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that there has been an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), as interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), in so far as the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard within a reasonable time. Specifically, approximately three years elapsed between the closure of the written procedure and the General Court’s decision to open the oral procedure. A delay on that scale amounted to an infringement of the right, referred to in Article 47 of the Charter, to an effective remedy and an infringement of the right to be heard within a reasonable time. The infringement of Article 47 of the Charter is particularly serious in the circumstances, in view of the fact that the appellant had to wait more than 14 years for a court (the General Court) to resolve the dispute on the merits, the Commission’s initial decision having been annulled on procedural grounds after a procedure lasting around seven years.

By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that there has been an infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. In particular, the appellant argues that the General Court disregarded the specific context of the ECSC Treaty and the duties of disclosure and non-discrimination imposed on undertakings in the context of that treaty, thereby misapplying the case-law of the Court relating to cartels. The appellant submits that the repeated publication over time of price lists not in alignment with the price proposed in the context of the cartel in question has had the effect of interrupting the concerted practice adopted by that cartel, whose objective was, according to the General Court, to fix minimum prices. Instead, the General Court held that it was necessary for the appellant to distance itself publicly even further.

By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, as interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the Convention, when it found that the length of the administrative procedure (that is to say, the procedure before the European Commission) was not excessive for the purposes of those provisions. In the present case, the administrative procedure took, in total, almost 54 months, including the initial procedure and the subsequent re-adoption procedure. In addition, the two or more years which were necessary for the Commission to readopt the contested decision appear excessive. The grounds stated by the General Court as justification for the length of the re-adoption procedure appear inadequate and contradictory, besides being manifestly inconsistent with the previous case-law of the General Court.

By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellant complains that there has been an infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of equal treatment. In particular, the Commission had subdivided the undertakings into groups in order to determine the basic fine to be applied to each undertaking, attempting — according to the contested decision — to maintain a proportionate relationship between the average market share of each group and the basic fine imposed on the individual undertakings belonging to that group. Although it subsequently acknowledged that the Commission had underestimated the average market share of one of those groups, with the result that the relationship of proportionality which the Commission had meant to maintain had not been maintained, the General Court did not find it necessary to re-establish that relationship.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/23

---

Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-90/10 Ferriere Nord v Commission

(Case C-88/15 P)

(2015/C 146/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-90/10 to the extent that it dismissed Ferriere Nord’s main head of claim seeking the annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009, as amended and supplemented by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-90/10 to the extent that it dismissed Ferriere Nord’s main head of claim seeking the annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009, as amended and supplemented by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009;

| — | consequently, annul the Commission Decisions mentioned above; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the Commission Decisions mentioned above;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it dismissed Ferriere Nord’s alternative head of claim seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009, as amended and supplemented by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009 and, as a result, reduce the fine imposed; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it dismissed Ferriere Nord’s alternative head of claim seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009, as amended and supplemented by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009 and, as a result, reduce the fine imposed;

| — | consequently, annul in part the Commission Decisions mentioned above and, as a result, order a further reduction (in addition to the reduction already granted by the General Court) of the fine imposed; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul in part the Commission Decisions mentioned above and, as a result, order a further reduction (in addition to the reduction already granted by the General Court) of the fine imposed;

| — | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| I — | Manifest distortion, as can be seen from the acts in question, of the facts and the evidence as regards the Commission’s lack of competence to impose penalties on Ferriere Nord — Unlawful failure to establish the clear contradictions in the statement of reasons for the Commission’s decision and failure to state reasons — Infringement of the rules governing the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

I —

Manifest distortion, as can be seen from the acts in question, of the facts and the evidence as regards the Commission’s lack of competence to impose penalties on Ferriere Nord — Unlawful failure to establish the clear contradictions in the statement of reasons for the Commission’s decision and failure to state reasons — Infringement of the rules governing the burden of proof.

| II — | Infringement of Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) owing to a failure to communicate a new ‘Statement of Objections’ beforehand — Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations — Manifest distortion, as can be seen from the acts in question, of the facts and the evidence — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the right to a hearing before the Hearing Officer. |
| --- | --- |

II —

Infringement of Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) owing to a failure to communicate a new ‘Statement of Objections’ beforehand — Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations — Manifest distortion, as can be seen from the acts in question, of the facts and the evidence — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the right to a hearing before the Hearing Officer.

| III — | Infringement of the Commission’s internal rules of procedure (and, in turn, of primary and secondary EU law on multilingualism) owing to the authentic language version of the Hearing Officer’s Final Report postdating the decision adopted by the College of Commissioners on 30 September 2009. |
| --- | --- |

III —

Infringement of the Commission’s internal rules of procedure (and, in turn, of primary and secondary EU law on multilingualism) owing to the authentic language version of the Hearing Officer’s Final Report postdating the decision adopted by the College of Commissioners on 30 September 2009.

| IV — | Duration of Ferriere Nord’s participation in the cartel — Errors of law in the assessment of the facts: distortion of the evidence — Infringement of the general principles concerning the burden of proof and in dubio pro reo — Contradictory statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

IV —

Duration of Ferriere Nord’s participation in the cartel — Errors of law in the assessment of the facts: distortion of the evidence — Infringement of the general principles concerning the burden of proof and in dubio pro reo — Contradictory statement of reasons.

| V — | Infringement of the principle of proportionality in determining the basic amount of the fine applied to Ferriere Nord in view of the seriousness and duration of the cartel — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

V —

Infringement of the principle of proportionality in determining the basic amount of the fine applied to Ferriere Nord in view of the seriousness and duration of the cartel — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Failure to state reasons.

| VI — | Manifest error (or clear inaccuracy) in calculating the reduction of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord — Misuse of powers of unlimited jurisdiction — Failures to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

VI —

Manifest error (or clear inaccuracy) in calculating the reduction of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord — Misuse of powers of unlimited jurisdiction — Failures to state reasons.

| VII — | Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful due to infringement of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

VII —

Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful due to infringement of the rights of the defence.

| VIII — | Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful by reason of the time spent. |
| --- | --- |

VIII —

Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful by reason of the time spent.

| IX — | Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful due to infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

IX —

Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful due to infringement of the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/24

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-83/10 Riva Fire v Commission

(Case C-89/15 P)

(2015/C 146/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo, T. Ubaldi and M. Toniolo, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court holds that the appellant’s rights of the defence have not been infringed and, consequently, annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court holds that the appellant’s rights of the defence have not been infringed and, consequently, annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | in the alternative, set aside only the part of the judgment under appeal which fixes the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant at 3 % and, consequently, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), either reduce the fine imposed on the appellant by the highest amount it deems appropriate or refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside only the part of the judgment under appeal which fixes the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant at 3 % and, consequently, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), either reduce the fine imposed on the appellant by the highest amount it deems appropriate or refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs, including those pertaining to the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs, including those pertaining to the proceedings before the General Court;

| — | incidentally, declare that the procedure followed before the General Court infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in so far as the General Court disregarded the rule that it must adjudicate within a reasonable time. |
| --- | --- |

—

incidentally, declare that the procedure followed before the General Court infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in so far as the General Court disregarded the rule that it must adjudicate within a reasonable time.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and provided an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal when assessing whether the procedural rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004
   (2)
  and the appellant’s rights of the defence had been infringed

  The General Court erred in law in holding that the comparisons made by the appellant between the contested decision and the Commission’s decision of 2002 were irrelevant and in concluding that the Commission was not obliged to issue a new statement of objections allowing the undertakings concerned to comment on the facts at issue. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and provided an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal when assessing whether the procedural rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004
   (2)
  and the appellant’s rights of the defence had been infringed

The General Court erred in law in holding that the comparisons made by the appellant between the contested decision and the Commission’s decision of 2002 were irrelevant and in concluding that the Commission was not obliged to issue a new statement of objections allowing the undertakings concerned to comment on the facts at issue.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and provided an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal when determining the final amount of the fine

  When re-determining the amount of the fine, the General Court exercised its unlimited jurisdiction in a way which was incorrect in two respects:






  (i) | it is not possible to ascertain from the grounds of the judgment under appeal whether, in reducing the amount of the fine by 3 %, the General Court gave due consideration to the fact that the infringement imputable to the appellant was less serious and of shorter duration; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and provided an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal when determining the final amount of the fine

When re-determining the amount of the fine, the General Court exercised its unlimited jurisdiction in a way which was incorrect in two respects:

(i)

it is not possible to ascertain from the grounds of the judgment under appeal whether, in reducing the amount of the fine by 3 %, the General Court gave due consideration to the fact that the infringement imputable to the appellant was less serious and of shorter duration;

| (ii) | the judgment under appeal is contradictory and vitiated by errors of law in so far as it extends the liability for other undertakings’ conduct between 25 November 1997 and 30 November 1998 to the appellant and implicitly imposes such liability on that company for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the judgment under appeal is contradictory and vitiated by errors of law in so far as it extends the liability for other undertakings’ conduct between 25 November 1997 and 30 November 1998 to the appellant and implicitly imposes such liability on that company for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal: the General Court contradicted itself and erred in law in the part of the judgment under appeal in which it categorised the appellant as a party to the December 1998 agreement and therefore included that company in the cartel for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine

  The General Court erred in law in giving it to be understood that the appellant was involved in the December 1998 agreement on sales quotas without acknowledging the fact that, during the period in which the agreement was devised, the appellant disassociated itself from the part of the cartel responsible for that agreement. That error of law affected the computation of the basic amount of the fine in terms of determining the seriousness and the duration of the infringement imputable to the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court contradicted itself and erred in law in the part of the judgment under appeal in which it categorised the appellant as a party to the December 1998 agreement and therefore included that company in the cartel for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine

The General Court erred in law in giving it to be understood that the appellant was involved in the December 1998 agreement on sales quotas without acknowledging the fact that, during the period in which the agreement was devised, the appellant disassociated itself from the part of the cartel responsible for that agreement. That error of law affected the computation of the basic amount of the fine in terms of determining the seriousness and the duration of the infringement imputable to the appellant.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to provide a statement of reasons in relation to the impact of the involvement of the appellant’s directors on the increase in the starting amount of the fine

  The General Court does not explain what evidence it used as its basis for concluding that the involvement of the appellant’s directors was not a decisive factor in increasing the basic amount of the fine. If the General Court had established that the multiplier applied to the basic amount of the fine imposed on the appellant had been calculated partly on the basis of the involvement of that undertaking’s directors, it should have annulled the Commission’s decision and, consequently, reduced the amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to provide a statement of reasons in relation to the impact of the involvement of the appellant’s directors on the increase in the starting amount of the fine

The General Court does not explain what evidence it used as its basis for concluding that the involvement of the appellant’s directors was not a decisive factor in increasing the basic amount of the fine. If the General Court had established that the multiplier applied to the basic amount of the fine imposed on the appellant had been calculated partly on the basis of the involvement of that undertaking’s directors, it should have annulled the Commission’s decision and, consequently, reduced the amount of the fine.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/26

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Case T-544/08 Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-90/15 P)

(2015/C 146/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH (represented by: J. L. Schulte, M. Dallmann and K. M. Künstner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 in Case T-544/08 Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 in Case T-544/08 Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission;

| — | on the basis of the information at its disposal, annul in so far as they concern the appellants Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2008 in Case COMP/39181 — Candle Waxes; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the basis of the information at its disposal, annul in so far as they concern the appellants Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2008 in Case COMP/39181 — Candle Waxes;

| — | annul or reduce the fine pursuant to Article 261 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or reduce the fine pursuant to Article 261 TFEU;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court for it to be reheard in the light of the issues of law settled by the Court of Justice; annul or reduce the fine pursuant to Article 261 TFEU; and order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court for it to be reheard in the light of the issues of law settled by the Court of Justice; annul or reduce the fine pursuant to Article 261 TFEU; and order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants rely on five grounds of appeal.

By their first ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court has infringed the principles of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. The appellants challenge the view of the General Court that the Commission’s decision to impose the fine was correct from the outset and definitive, with the result that the appellants could contest the findings of the Commission only if they could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Commission’s decision was erroneous. According to the appellants, this infringes both Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), in conjunction with Article 52(3) thereof and Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and Article 47(2) of the Charter, in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Charter and Article 6(1) of the ECHR.

By their second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in applying Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU). In their view, the General Court considered, in the judgment under appeal, as falling under the prohibition of agreements which distort competition conduct which does not satisfy the necessary criteria of that prohibition. In addition, the General Court considered, contrary to the rules on the burden of proof and on the assessment of the evidence, that the alleged conduct of the appellants fell under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU). To that extent, in several respects the General Court erred in law in that it made incorrect findings, distorted the evidence, wrongly qualified in law certain items of evidence and infringed the right of the appellants to a fair trial.

By their third ground of appeal, the appellants maintain that the General Court infringed the fundamental principles that offences must have a statutory basis and that that essential decisions require the legislature’s approval (Wesentlichkeitsvorbehalt). Since both the Court of Justice and the General Court consider that the figure of 10 % laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) is an absolute limit rather than an indicative limit, EU law does not contain any framework for calculating the amount of fines for infringements of Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU). However, it is for the legislature alone to establish the framework for setting fines, not the Commission.

By their fourth ground of appeal, the appellants rely on further infringements of the principle that offences must have a statutory basis and also that of non-retroactivity. The appellants also maintain that the General Court cannot, without erring in law, set a fine without a framework for calculating its amount. In addition, the appellants consider that the mere act of ensuring that the Commission followed its own guidelines constitutes a failure to exercise its discretion and thereby an infringement of Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003. Finally, the appellants submit that the General Court infringed the principle of non-retroactivity in that it approved the application of guidelines for the setting of fines established in 2006 to conduct which had already ceased in 2005.

By their fifth and final ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court infringed the principle of proportionality. According to the appellants, the General Court infringed Article 49(3) of the Charter in that it determined a coefficient of 17 % in relation to the appellants for both the severity of the infringement and the entry-fee. As a result of its error in relation to the qualification of the appellants’ conduct as an infringement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU), the General Court further erred in law by miscalculating the duration of the alleged infringement.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

(Case C-91/15)

(2015/C 146/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kawasaki Motors Europe NV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

Question referred

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 (1) of 3 November 2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 290, p. 56.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-96/15)

(2015/C 146/34)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC

Defendant: Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (1), applied in the light of recitals 9 and 11 in the preamble thereto and the judgments in Zuckerfabrik Jülich I and II, and the general Community law principles of proportionality, freedom to conduct a business and the prohibition of unjust enrichment to be interpreted as meaning that a sugar manufacturer is entitled to reimbursement of production levies paid on the basis of the quantities of quota sugar still held in stock on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 (2)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (1), applied in the light of recitals 9 and 11 in the preamble thereto and the judgments in Zuckerfabrik Jülich I and II, and the general Community law principles of proportionality, freedom to conduct a business and the prohibition of unjust enrichment to be interpreted as meaning that a sugar manufacturer is entitled to reimbursement of production levies paid on the basis of the quantities of quota sugar still held in stock on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 (2)?

| 2. | (a) | If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, must the amount of levies to be reimbursed to manufacturers be based solely on the tonnage of sugar held in stock on 30 June 2006? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, must the amount of levies to be reimbursed to manufacturers be based solely on the tonnage of sugar held in stock on 30 June 2006?

| (b) | If the preceding question is answered in the negative, must the tonnage of sugar to be taken as the basis for reimbursement of the levies be based on variations in Community sugar stock levels between 1 July 2001and 30 June 2006? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the preceding question is answered in the negative, must the tonnage of sugar to be taken as the basis for reimbursement of the levies be based on variations in Community sugar stock levels between 1 July 2001and 30 June 2006?

| 3. | May the calculation of the levy to be repaid reasonably be arrived at by multiplying the quantity of sugar deemed to be held in stock in response to in Question 2 by the weighted average of the ‘average losses’ established during the 2001/2006 COM, or must it be calculated differently and, if so, how? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May the calculation of the levy to be repaid reasonably be arrived at by multiplying the quantity of sugar deemed to be held in stock in response to in Question 2 by the weighted average of the ‘average losses’ established during the 2001/2006 COM, or must it be calculated differently and, if so, how?

| 4. | If the foregoing questions are answered in the affirmative, is Regulation No 164/2007 of 19 February 2007 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3) invalid? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the foregoing questions are answered in the affirmative, is Regulation No 164/2007 of 19 February 2007 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3) invalid?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1).

(3)  OJ 2007 L 51, p. 17.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/29

---

Action brought on 3 March 2015 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-104/15)

(2015/C 146/35)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae, D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not adopting the necessary measures to prevent pollution from dust particles coming from the Bosneag pond extension belonging to the copper and zinc mining operations of Moldomin at Moldova Noua, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not adopting the necessary measures to prevent pollution from dust particles coming from the Bosneag pond extension belonging to the copper and zinc mining operations of Moldomin at Moldova Noua, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1);

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

—

Order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action brought by the European Commission against Romania concerns the failure by the Romanian authorities to adopt the measures necessary to prevent pollution from dust particles coming from one of the ponds of a copper mining operation.

The Commission submits that, by not adopting the measures necessary to prevent the spread of dust particles from the surface of the Bosneag pond extension, which damage human health and the environment, Romania has not complied with Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC. The Commission considers that Romania must ensure the protection of human health and the environment from any negative effect whatsoever — even though it enjoys a certain degree of flexibility as to the specific measures that it must adopt — if the requirements defined in Article 4 of Directive 2006/21/EC are to be respected. The Commission also considers that Article 13(2) of the directive imposes a specific obligation on the competent authority, that is to say, that authority must ensure that the operator takes adequate measures to prevent or reduce the dust.

The Commission relies in these proceedings on the report of the competent Romanian authority for environmental protection, on information from the press and on the responses provided by Romania in the pre-litigation proceedings, all of which go to show that, in the area of Moldova Noua, there is significant pollution from dust coming from the Bosneag pond extension which, particularly at times when the wind is stronger, has a harmful effect on the health of the local inhabitants and the environment.

Furthermore, the Commission argues that Romania cannot rely on purely internal situations, such as the privatisation of Moldomin and the future environmental obligations of a buyer, in order to justify non-fulfilment of the obligations under the directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 102, p. 15.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S and Others v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

(Case C-112/15)

(2015/C 146/36)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslageri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportsla A/S

| Defendants | : | 1. | Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

Defendants

:

1.

Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

| 2. | Fødevarestyrelsen |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fødevarestyrelsen

Question referred

Must Article 27(4)(a) of, read in conjunction with points 1 and 2 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, be interpreted as meaning that the Member States, in setting the fee charged to food establishments, are precluded from including expenditure for the salaries and training of the public-sector staff who are hired for the purpose of completing training which fulfils the requirements for ‘official auxiliary’: see Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, but who, prior to being accepted into the training or in the course of their training do not conduct meat inspections?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/30

---

Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-116/15)

(2015/C 146/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | join the present case with the case registered under number C-14/15 for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure or of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the present case with the case registered under number C-14/15 for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure or of the judgment;

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia (1);

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

—

order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament invokes two pleas in law in support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU.

By its first plea in law, the Parliament claims that the Council used an incorrect legal basis in order to adopt Decision 2014/911/EU. In the context of that first plea in law, the Parliament puts forward two limbs of reasoning. The Parliament claims in particular that the Council should have found a legal basis for the contested decision amongst the provisions of the TFEU and that, in any event, the Council relied on an unlawful provision for the adoption of Decision 2014/911/EU. It used a derived legal basis, which, as such, is unlawful, in accordance with the Court’s case-law. Under that plea, the Parliament raises a plea of illegality relating to Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2).

By its second plea in law, the Parliament complains that the Council used an incorrect decisional procedure in order to adopt that decision. The Parliament thus derives therefrom an infringement of the Treaties and an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 360, p. 28.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 210, p. 1.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, intervener: European Commission

(Case C-507/13) (1)

(2015/C 146/38)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA

(Case C-56/14) (1)

(2015/C 146/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 December 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-116/14) (1)

(2015/C 146/40)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Dieppe — France) — Facet SA v Jean Henri

(Case C-225/14) (1)

(2015/C 146/41)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 January 2015 — European Commission v Ireland, intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-236/14) (1)

(2015/C 146/42)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-412/14) (1)

(2015/C 146/43)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

---

General Court

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission

(Case T-89/09) (1)

((State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen - Action for annulment - Letter sent to the complainants - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees - Undertaking in difficulty - Sale of public land - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 146/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (Creuzburg, Germany) (represented by: initially J. Heithecker and F. von Alemann, then J. Heithecker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Land Hessen (Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész and P. Melcher, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2008) 6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, and, second, of the decision allegedly contained in letter D/55056 of the Commission of 15 December 2008 concerning the State aid procedure CP 195/2007 — Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH in so far as it concluded that the State guarantees granted by the Land Hessen do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH in so far as it concluded that the State guarantees granted by the Land Hessen do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG to bear four-fifths of its own costs, four-fifths of the costs of the European Commission and four-fifths of the costs of the Land Hessen; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG to bear four-fifths of its own costs, four-fifths of the costs of the European Commission and four-fifths of the costs of the Land Hessen;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear one-fifth of its own costs and one-fifth of the costs of Pollmeier Massivholz; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear one-fifth of its own costs and one-fifth of the costs of Pollmeier Massivholz;

| 5. | Orders the Land Hessen to bear one-fifth of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Land Hessen to bear one-fifth of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Cahier and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Prohibition for producers of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties from themselves distilling spirits from quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the quantity normally produced - Application of that legislation by national authorities))

(2015/C 146/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jean-Marie Cahier (Montchaude, France) and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission (represented by: in Cases T-195/11 and T-458/11, initially É. Sitbon and P. Mahnič Bruni, then É. Sitbon et S. Barbagallo, in Case T-448/12, initially E. Karlsson and É. Sitbon, then E. Karlsson and A. Westerhof Löfflerová and finally E. Karlsson and S. Barbagallo and, in Case T-41/13, S. Barbagallo and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: in Case T-195/11, initially D. Bianchi, B. Schima and M. Vollkommer, then D. Bianchi and B. Schima, in Case T-458/11, B. Schima, in Case T-448/12, I. Galindo Martin and B. Schima and, in Case T-41/13, initially A. Marcoulli and B. Schima, then D. Bianchi, B. Schima and A. Marcoulli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications for damages for harm that the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of judicial actions and convictions to which they were subject in France, on the ground that they failed to conform, over the course of several wine years, with the compulsory distillation mechanism established by Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1), and implemented by Commission regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms (OJ 2000 L 194, p. 45).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13 be joined for the purposes of judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Jean-Marie Cahier and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment to bear their own costs relating to the main proceedings as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Jean-Marie Cahier and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment to bear their own costs relating to the main proceedings as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

| 4. | Orders Jean-Marie Cahier and the other applicants in Case T-195/11 to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case T-195/11 R; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Jean-Marie Cahier and the other applicants in Case T-195/11 to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case T-195/11 R;

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

5.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa)

(Case T-611/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa - Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 146/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: South Pacific Management (Papeete, Tahiti, France) (represented by: S. de La Marnierre and E. Landon, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and South Pacific Management.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM and South Pacific Management to each bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM and South Pacific Management to each bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T-30/12) (1)

((Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply to Serbia of anti-rabies vaccines - Rejection of a tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Manifest error of assessment))

(2015/C 146/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: initially R. Gross and T. Kroupa, then R. Gross and A. Mekdam, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 5 October 2011 (OJ 2011/S 222-359832) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/130686/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission

(Case T-466/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia - Refusal of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid - Calculation of the export price - Single economic entity - Calculation of the dumping margin - Application of a methodology different from that used in the original investigation - Change in circumstances - Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

(2015/C 146/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decisions C(2012) 5577 final, C(2012) 5585 final, C(2012) 5588 final, C(2012) 5595 final, C(2012) 5596 final, C(2012) 5598 final and C(2012) 5611 final of 10 August 2012 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia, in so far as those decisions refuse reimbursement of the amounts of anti-dumping duties applied for, save for those amounts the applications for which have been found inadmissible because submitted after the statutory time-limits had expired.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders RFA International, LP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders RFA International, LP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Naazneen Investments v OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)

(Case T-250/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark SMART WATER - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 146/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and D. Stone, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2013 (Case R 1101/2011-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Energy Brands, Inc. and Naazneen Investments Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Intermark v OHIM — Coca-Cola (RIENERGY Cola)

(Case T-384/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark RIENERGY Cola - Earlier Community figurative mark Coca-Cola and earlier Community word mark COCA-COLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 146/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intermark Srl (Stei, Romania) (represented initially by Á. László, and subsequently by B. Bozóki, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1116/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Coca-Cola Company and Intermark Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Intermark Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Intermark Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — Chin Haur Indonesia v Council

(Case T-412/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Circumvention - Failure to cooperate - Articles 13 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))

(2015/C 146/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT (Tangerang, Indonesia) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, and by R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, Agents); and Maxcom Ltd (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, to the extent that it concerns Chin Haur Indonesia, PT; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, to the extent that it concerns Chin Haur Indonesia, PT;

| 2) | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Chin Haur Indonesia and to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

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

| 3) | Orders the European Commission and Maxcom Ltd to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission and Maxcom Ltd to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — City Cycle Industries v Council

(Case T-413/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Circumvention - Failure to cooperate - Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Equal treatment - Access to the file))

(2015/C 146/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: City Cycle Industries (Colombo, Sri Lanka) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, Agents); and Maxcom Ltd (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, to the extent that it concerns City Cycle Industries; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, to the extent that it concerns City Cycle Industries;

| 2) | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by City Cycle Industries and to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

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

| 3) | Orders the European Commission and Maxcom Ltd to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission and Maxcom Ltd to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/39

---

Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council

(Case T-66/15)

(2015/C 146/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: É. Moutet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the Council has failed to comply with its obligations under the FEU Treaty by not reviewing his situation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Council has failed to comply with its obligations under the FEU Treaty by not reviewing his situation;

| — | Order the Council to review his situation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to review his situation;

| — | Order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that by not acting on his application for review, the Council failed to comply with its obligations according to the legislation and case-law of the European Union.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/40

---

Action brought on 18 February 2015 — KENUP Foundation a.o./EIT

(Case T-76/15)

(2015/C 146/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: KENUP Foundation (Kalkara, Malta), Candena GmbH (Lüneburg, Germany), Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo (CO BIK) (Ajdovščina, Slovenia), Evotec AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, C. Wagner and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, of 9 December 2014, on the designation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (02008.EIT.2014.I.EIT.GB) and on the rejection of the KENUP proposal as notified by letter of 10 December 2014 (012234.EIT.D.2014.MK) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, of 9 December 2014, on the designation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (02008.EIT.2014.I.EIT.GB) and on the rejection of the KENUP proposal as notified by letter of 10 December 2014 (012234.EIT.D.2014.MK) and

| — | order the EIT to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIT to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions rejecting the KENUP proposal were not taken by the competent EU body. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions rejecting the KENUP proposal were not taken by the competent EU body.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to follow the applicable selection procedure when adopting the contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to follow the applicable selection procedure when adopting the contested decisions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to state reasons by not notifying the designation decision to the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to state reasons by not notifying the designation decision to the applicants.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external expert violates the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external expert violates the principle of equal treatment.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the principles of transparency and the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the principles of transparency and the obligation to state reasons.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the Horizon 2020 Participation Regulation’s provisions on ethical review. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the Horizon 2020 Participation Regulation’s provisions on ethical review.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts contains manifest errors in the assessment of the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts contains manifest errors in the assessment of the proposal.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that experts of the EIT’s and members of the EIT Governing Board involved in the selection procedure leading to the Contested Decision were in a position that brought their interests into conflict with those of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that experts of the EIT’s and members of the EIT Governing Board involved in the selection procedure leading to the Contested Decision were in a position that brought their interests into conflict with those of the European Union.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the EIT 2014 Call for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) violates the rules of procedure governing the KICs selection procedure. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the EIT 2014 Call for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) violates the rules of procedure governing the KICs selection procedure.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/41

---

Action brought on 6 March 2015 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-118/15)

(2015/C 146/55)

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by L. Bembič, državni pravobranilec (legal representative of the State))

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on 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) (notified under document C(2014) 10135) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, more particularly as regards the financial correction of EUR 8 7 00  815,25, adopted on account of an irregularity for the financial year 2009 concerning the Sugar-restructuring Fund measure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on 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) (notified under document C(2014) 10135) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, more particularly as regards the financial correction of EUR 8 7 00  815,25, adopted on account of an irregularity for the financial year 2009 concerning the Sugar-restructuring Fund measure;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Or, if the Court should not grant the request of the Republic of Slovenia set out above, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on 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) (notified under document C(2014) 10135) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, more particularly as regards the financial correction of EUR 8 7 00  815,25, adopted on account of an irregularity for the financial year 2009 concerning the Sugar-restructuring Fund measure, in the amount exceeding the sum of EUR 4 3 50  407,62; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on 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) (notified under document C(2014) 10135) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, more particularly as regards the financial correction of EUR 8 7 00  815,25, adopted on account of an irregularity for the financial year 2009 concerning the Sugar-restructuring Fund measure, in the amount exceeding the sum of EUR 4 3 50  407,62;

| — | order the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the parties to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea: misapplication of the TFEU, or of a legal rule relating to its application, manifest error of assessment, inadequate reasons given for the decision and breach of the principle audi alteram partem

  The applicant maintains, in that regard, that the Commission erred in its finding that the silos are an integral part of the production plant and that the applicant ought, therefore, to have dismantled them on the basis of the comprehensive restructuring plan. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea: misapplication of the TFEU, or of a legal rule relating to its application, manifest error of assessment, inadequate reasons given for the decision and breach of the principle audi alteram partem

The applicant maintains, in that regard, that the Commission erred in its finding that the silos are an integral part of the production plant and that the applicant ought, therefore, to have dismantled them on the basis of the comprehensive restructuring plan.

| 2. | Second plea: breach of the principles of legality, of cooperation in good faith, of the protection of legitimate expectations, and of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti

  In this respect, the applicant argues that if the Commission, before 8 August 2008 (the date on which the applicant approved an amendment to the restructuring plan concerning the preservation of the silos), had answered the applicant’s written question about the preservation of certain structures, if it had amended and supplemented Regulation No 968/2006 (1) and if, having received the communication relating to the alteration of the restructuring programme, it had informed the applicant of the alleged irregularity concerning the preservation of the silos, or if it had written to all the Member States informing them of its interpretation of the unclear provisions of the relevant legislation, the financial correction at issue would not have been made and the contested decision would not have been adopted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: breach of the principles of legality, of cooperation in good faith, of the protection of legitimate expectations, and of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti

In this respect, the applicant argues that if the Commission, before 8 August 2008 (the date on which the applicant approved an amendment to the restructuring plan concerning the preservation of the silos), had answered the applicant’s written question about the preservation of certain structures, if it had amended and supplemented Regulation No 968/2006 (1) and if, having received the communication relating to the alteration of the restructuring programme, it had informed the applicant of the alleged irregularity concerning the preservation of the silos, or if it had written to all the Member States informing them of its interpretation of the unclear provisions of the relevant legislation, the financial correction at issue would not have been made and the contested decision would not have been adopted.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32).

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/42

---

Order of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Générations futures v Commission

(Case T-458/12) (1)

(2015/C 146/56)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 — AX v ECB

(Case F-73/13) (1)

((Civil service - ECB staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Dismissal - Rights of the defence - Access to the disciplinary file - Access to information and documents on other divisions - Reasonable time - Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee - Advisory role of the Disciplinary Committee - Stricter disciplinary measure than that recommended - Obligation to state reasons - Management of a division - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality of the disciplinary measure - Extenuating circumstances - Aggravating circumstances - Objection of illegality))

(2015/C 146/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AX (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: M. López Torres and E. Carlini, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul the decision to dismiss the applicant following disciplinary proceedings instigated for serious misconduct and for compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Declares that AX is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Declares that AX is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 33.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Gyarmathy v FRA

(Case F-97/13) (1)

((Civil service - Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of candidature))

(2015/C 146/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Győr, Hungary) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position of ‘Senior Programme Manager’ and not to appoint the applicant to the second position referred to in the vacancy notice.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 26.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/44

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Rajala v OHIM

(Case F-24/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Appraisal report - General assessment of performance - Consistency))

(2015/C 146/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tuula Rajala (El Campello, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report in respect of the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2012.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Ms Rajala is to bear half of her own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Rajala is to bear half of her own costs;

| 3. | Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Rajala. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Rajala.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014, p. 55.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/45

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — DK v EEAS

(Case F-27/14) (1)

((Civil service - EEAS staff - Official - Discipliary proceedings - Removal from post without reduction of entitlement to a pension - Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Pending criminal proceedings - The facts before the appointing authority and the court hearing the criminal proceedings the same))

(2015/C 146/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: DK (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision by which the applicant was removed from his post without reduction of his entitlement to a pension, with effect from 1 February 2014, following disciplinary proceedings taken after the indictment of the applicant by the national authorities for European public procurement fraud, forgery and use of forgery, money laundering and corruption.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 16 January 2014 by which the European External Action Service removed DK from his post without reduction of his entitlement to a pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 16 January 2014 by which the European External Action Service removed DK from his post without reduction of his entitlement to a pension;

| 2. | Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by DK. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by DK.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 43.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/45

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro v EEAS

(Case F-51/14) (1)

((Civil service - EEAS staff - Official - Promotion - Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits of all officials eligible for promotion - Officials proposed by the EEAS services and officials not proposed - Taking into account staff reports - Purely literal assessments))

(2015/C 146/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Manuel Jaime Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro (Brussles, Belgium) (represented by: initially D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 3 in the 2013 promotion exercise and seeking damages for the non-material loss allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the appointing authority of the European External Action Services of 9 October 2013 fixing the list of officials promoted in the 2013 promotion exercise in so far as the name of Mr Riberio Sinde Monteiro is not included on that list. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the appointing authority of the European External Action Services of 9 October 2013 fixing the list of officials promoted in the 2013 promotion exercise in so far as the name of Mr Riberio Sinde Monteiro is not included on that list.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the application as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the application as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs the costs incurred by Mr Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs the costs incurred by Mr Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro.

---

(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014, p. 62.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/46

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 24 March 2015 — Maggiulli v Commission

(Case F-61/14) (1)

((Civil service - Promotion - 2013 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Consideration of comparative merits))

(2015/C 146/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carola Maggiulli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mrs Maggiulli to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Maggiulli to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 61.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/47

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-58/13) (1)

((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 146/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the infringement alleged of the applicant’s right to confidentiality caused by the defendant’s sending a letter concerning him to a lawyer who did not represent him.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-58/13 Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-58/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013, p. 26.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/47

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-62/13) (1)

((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 146/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to withhold the sum of EUR 500 and five further sums in the amount of EUR 504,67 from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the months July to December 2012 respectively.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-62/13 Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-62/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013, p. 26.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/48

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-65/13) (1)

((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 146/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the rejection of the applicant’s claim addressed to the Commission seeking payment by the Commission of the sum of EUR 10  000 on account of the harm purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of a letter informing him, inter alia, that the Commission had set off his applications for costs, which the Commission had been ordered to pay, against sums owed by the applicant to the Commission.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-65/13 Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-65/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013, p. 24.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/48

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-89/13) (1)

((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 146/66)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to withhold the sum of EUR 504,67 from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the each of the three months from January to March 2013.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-89/13 Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-89/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, p. 39.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/49

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-90/13) (1)

((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 146/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s requests for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the infringement alleged of the applicant’s right to confidentiality caused by the defendant’s sending a letter concerning him to a lawyer who did not represent him.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-90/13 Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-90/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, p. 40.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/49

---

Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-28/15)

(2015/C 146/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the final decision to transfer the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme under the new general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2014 fixing the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights to be credited acquired before his entry into service with the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2014 fixing the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights to be credited acquired before his entry into service with the Commission;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/50

---

Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Entreprise Commune ECSEL

(Case F-29/15)

(2015/C 146/69)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V.A. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: Entreprise Commune ECSEL

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the illegalities committed by the defendant in establishing his annual staff report for 2012

Form of order sought

| — | Order the Entreprise Commune ECSEL to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary harm caused by all its unlawful conduct referred to in the application by paying the applicant the sum of forty thousand euros (EUR 40  000) together with interest from the day of delivery of the judgment and until its payment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Entreprise Commune ECSEL to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary harm caused by all its unlawful conduct referred to in the application by paying the applicant the sum of forty thousand euros (EUR 40  000) together with interest from the day of delivery of the judgment and until its payment in full;

| — | Order the Entreprise Commune ECSEL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Entreprise Commune ECSEL to pay the costs.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/50

---

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-30/15)

(2015/C 146/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision, adopted pursuant to the annulling judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2014 in Case F-53/13, Diamantopoulos v EEAS, not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise, and the claim for damages for the non-material and material harm allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare unlawful the decision of 29 April 2014 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare unlawful the decision of 29 April 2014 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant damages of EUR 25  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant damages of EUR 25  000;

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

—

order EEAS to pay the costs.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/51

---

Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-31/15)

(2015/C 146/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Verlardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicant’s pension statement for the month of May 2014 in so far as it contains pension adjustments at the rate of 0 % for 2011 and 0,8 % for 2012, and a claim for damages for the material loss allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, by way of damages for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, from the date of the judgment to be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, by way of damages for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/51

---

Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council

(Case F-32/15)

(2015/C 146/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicants’ pay and pension slips for May 2014 in so far as they contain adjustments of 0 % for 2011 and 0,8 % for 2012, and the claim for damages for the material harm allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decisions and, where necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decisions and, where necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, by way of compensation for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, as of 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, by way of compensation for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, as of 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/52

---

Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-35/15)

(2015/C 146/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to take further action on the request for assistance made by the applicant even though he was under investigation for misappropriation of funds accruing to the Community budget.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2014, received on 3 December 2014, rejecting complaint No R/865/14 submitted by the applicant on 5 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2014, received on 3 December 2014, rejecting complaint No R/865/14 submitted by the applicant on 5 August 2014;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 17  242,51, to be adjusted if necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 17  242,51, to be adjusted if necessary;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3  000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs, to be adjusted if necessary, and to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3  000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs, to be adjusted if necessary, and to pay all the costs.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/52

---

Action brought on 27 February 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Justice

(Case F-36/15)

(2015/C 146/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decisions fixing the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the applicants’ salary slips in respect of July 2014 in so far as they apply for the first time Article 8 of Annex VII to the version of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 January 2014 in order to fix the reimbursement of their travel expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicants’ salary slips in respect of July 2014 in so far as they apply for the first time Article 8 of Annex VII to the version of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 January 2014 in order to fix the reimbursement of their travel expenses;

| — | order the Court of Justice to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

---

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2015 — BU v EMA

(Case F-97/14) (1)

(2015/C 146/75)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 50.

---