# Official Journal C 250/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.250.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 250 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5518 August 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.250.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 250

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5518 August 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2012/C 250/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 243, 11.8.2012 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2012/C 250/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 243, 11.8.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2012/C 250/02 | Case C-307/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor — United Kingdom) — Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks (Trade marks — Approximation of laws of the Member States — Directive 2008/95/EC — Identification of the goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought — Requirements of clarity and precision — Use of class headings of the Nice Classification for the purposes of the registration of trade marks — Whether permissible — Extent of protection of the trade mark) | 2 |
| 2012/C 250/03 | Case C-452/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes — Banking sector — Taxation of capital gains — Substitute tax — Selectivity) | 2 |
| 2012/C 250/04 | Case C-514/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v SEWAR spol. s r.o. (Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Temporal scope — Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union) | 3 |
| 2012/C 250/05 | Case C-5/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner (Free movement of goods — Industrial and commercial property — Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected — Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law — Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law) | 3 |
| 2012/C 250/06 | Case C-15/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Sommer v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien (Accession of new Member States — Republic of Bulgaria — Member State legislation making the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market — Directive 2004/114/EC — Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service) | 4 |
| 2012/C 250/07 | Case C-78/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO. (Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Sick leave — Annual leave coinciding with sick leave — Entitlement to take paid annual leave at another time) | 4 |
| 2012/C 250/08 | Joined Cases C-80/11 and C-142/11: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság and the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mahagében kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11) and Péter Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11) (Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Conditions governing the exercise of that right — Article 273 — National measures to combat fraud — Practice of the national tax authorities — Refusal of the right to deduct in the event of improper conduct on the part of the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods or services in respect of which the exercise of that right is sought — Burden of proof — Obligation of the taxable person to satisfy himself as to the propriety of the conduct of the issuer of that invoice and to provide proof thereof) | 5 |
| 2012/C 250/09 | Case C-84/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala (Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Pharmacies — National licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies — Establishment of branch pharmacies — Conditions which differ according to whether the pharmacy is a private pharmacy or a University of Helsinki pharmacy — University of Helsinki Pharmacy having specific tasks in connection with pharmacy teaching and pharmaceutical services) | 6 |
| 2012/C 250/10 | Case C-135/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeals — Public access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 — Article 4(5) — Scope — Documents originating from a Member State — Objection by the Member State to disclosure of the documents — Extent of review by the institution and the European Union judicature of the Member State’s reasons for objecting — Production of the document to the European Union judicature) | 6 |
| 2012/C 250/11 | Case C-177/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis (Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Article 3(2)(b) — Margin of discretion of the Member States) | 7 |
| 2012/C 250/12 | Case C-223/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — European Union water policy — River basin district management plans — Publication and notification to the Commission — None — Information and consultation of the public on the envisaged management plans — None) | 7 |
| 2012/C 250/13 | Case C-294/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom NV (Eighth VAT Directive — Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — Time-limit within which refund applications are to be submitted — Time bar) | 8 |
| 2012/C 250/14 | Case C-227/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, handelend onder de naam ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu | 8 |
| 2012/C 250/15 | Case C-267/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 30 May 2012 — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres | 9 |
| 2012/C 250/16 | Case C-275/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln | 9 |
| 2012/C 250/17 | Case C-279/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 4 June 2012 — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water | 9 |
| 2012/C 250/18 | Case C-282/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 6 June 2012 — Fazenda Pública v ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda | 10 |
| 2012/C 250/19 | Case C-297/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgerichts Laufen (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2012 — Strafverfahren v Gjoko Filev and Adnan Osmani | 10 |
| | General Court |
| 2012/C 250/20 | Case T-304/08: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Smurfit Kappa Group v Commission (State aid — Corrugated case materials — Aid for the construction of a paper mill — Guidelines on national regional aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Admissibility — Validity of the authority conferred by a legal person on its lawyers — Adoption of a decision upon conclusion of the preliminary examination phase — Standing to bring proceedings — Procedural rights of interested parties — Serious difficulties justifying the initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Exercise by the Commission of its discretion — Article 87(3)(a) EC — Article 88(2) and (3) EC — Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 44(5) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure) | 12 |
| 2012/C 250/21 | Case T-520/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — TF1 and Others v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Aid intended to be granted by the French Republic to France Télévisions — Budgetary grant for 2009 — Decision not to raise objections — Service of general economic interest — Criterion of proportionality — No serious difficulties) | 12 |
| 2012/C 250/22 | Case T-60/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2012 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ROYAL SHAKESPEARE — Earlier Community word mark RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY — Relative grounds for invalidity — Mark with a reputation — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of association — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark) | 13 |
| 2012/C 250/23 | Case T-559/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark natural beauty — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 13 |
| 2012/C 250/24 | Case T-587/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Interspeed v Commission (Non-contractual liability — External relations — Call for tenders issued by the EAR concerning work at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing, the financing of the works and other connected measures — No causal link) | 13 |
| 2012/C 250/25 | Case T-135/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CLORALEX — Earlier national word marks CLOROX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2012/C 250/26 | Case T-37/11: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — Hungary v Commission (Action for annulment — Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) — Contribution to Hungary in respect of the period from 2004 to 2006 — Recovery of part of the amount paid — Challengeable act — Inadmissibility) | 14 |
| 2012/C 250/27 | Case T-531/11: Order of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Hamas v Council (Annulment action — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Lis pendens) | 14 |
| 2012/C 250/28 | Case T-546/11: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission (Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure — Acts inseparable from the contract — Inadmissibility) | 15 |
| 2012/C 250/29 | Case T-168/11: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament | 15 |
| 2012/C 250/30 | Case T-260/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission | 16 |
| 2012/C 250/31 | Case T-272/12: Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission | 17 |
| 2012/C 250/32 | Case T-275/12: Action brought on 15 June 2012 — FC Dynamo-Minsk v Council | 17 |
| 2012/C 250/33 | Case T-276/12: Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Chyzh and Others v Council | 18 |
| 2012/C 250/34 | Case T-290/12: Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Poland v Commission | 18 |
| 2012/C 250/35 | Case T-296/12: Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Health Food Manufacturer’s Association and Others v Commission | 19 |
| 2012/C 250/36 | Case T-301/12: Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission | 20 |
| 2012/C 250/37 | Case T-145/10: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2012 — Solae v OHIM — Delitaste (alpha taste) | 20 |
| 2012/C 250/38 | Case T-656/11: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council | 20 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2012/C 250/02

Case C-307/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor — United Kingdom) — Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks (Trade marks — Approximation of laws of the Member States — Directive 2008/95/EC — Identification of the goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought — Requirements of clarity and precision — Use of class headings of the Nice Classification for the purposes of the registration of trade marks — Whether permissible — Extent of protection of the trade mark)

2

2012/C 250/03

Case C-452/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes — Banking sector — Taxation of capital gains — Substitute tax — Selectivity)

2

2012/C 250/04

Case C-514/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v SEWAR spol. s r.o. (Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Temporal scope — Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union)

3

2012/C 250/05

Case C-5/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner (Free movement of goods — Industrial and commercial property — Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected — Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law — Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law)

3

2012/C 250/06

Case C-15/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Sommer v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien (Accession of new Member States — Republic of Bulgaria — Member State legislation making the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market — Directive 2004/114/EC — Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service)

4

2012/C 250/07

Case C-78/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO. (Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Sick leave — Annual leave coinciding with sick leave — Entitlement to take paid annual leave at another time)

4

2012/C 250/08

Joined Cases C-80/11 and C-142/11: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság and the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mahagében kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11) and Péter Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11) (Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Conditions governing the exercise of that right — Article 273 — National measures to combat fraud — Practice of the national tax authorities — Refusal of the right to deduct in the event of improper conduct on the part of the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods or services in respect of which the exercise of that right is sought — Burden of proof — Obligation of the taxable person to satisfy himself as to the propriety of the conduct of the issuer of that invoice and to provide proof thereof)

5

2012/C 250/09

Case C-84/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala (Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Pharmacies — National licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies — Establishment of branch pharmacies — Conditions which differ according to whether the pharmacy is a private pharmacy or a University of Helsinki pharmacy — University of Helsinki Pharmacy having specific tasks in connection with pharmacy teaching and pharmaceutical services)

6

2012/C 250/10

Case C-135/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeals — Public access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 — Article 4(5) — Scope — Documents originating from a Member State — Objection by the Member State to disclosure of the documents — Extent of review by the institution and the European Union judicature of the Member State’s reasons for objecting — Production of the document to the European Union judicature)

6

2012/C 250/11

Case C-177/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis (Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Article 3(2)(b) — Margin of discretion of the Member States)

7

2012/C 250/12

Case C-223/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — European Union water policy — River basin district management plans — Publication and notification to the Commission — None — Information and consultation of the public on the envisaged management plans — None)

7

2012/C 250/13

Case C-294/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom NV (Eighth VAT Directive — Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — Time-limit within which refund applications are to be submitted — Time bar)

8

2012/C 250/14

Case C-227/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, handelend onder de naam ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

8

2012/C 250/15

Case C-267/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 30 May 2012 — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

9

2012/C 250/16

Case C-275/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln

9

2012/C 250/17

Case C-279/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 4 June 2012 — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water

9

2012/C 250/18

Case C-282/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 6 June 2012 — Fazenda Pública v ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda

10

2012/C 250/19

Case C-297/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgerichts Laufen (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2012 — Strafverfahren v Gjoko Filev and Adnan Osmani

10

General Court

2012/C 250/20

Case T-304/08: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Smurfit Kappa Group v Commission (State aid — Corrugated case materials — Aid for the construction of a paper mill — Guidelines on national regional aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Admissibility — Validity of the authority conferred by a legal person on its lawyers — Adoption of a decision upon conclusion of the preliminary examination phase — Standing to bring proceedings — Procedural rights of interested parties — Serious difficulties justifying the initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Exercise by the Commission of its discretion — Article 87(3)(a) EC — Article 88(2) and (3) EC — Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 44(5) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure)

12

2012/C 250/21

Case T-520/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — TF1 and Others v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Aid intended to be granted by the French Republic to France Télévisions — Budgetary grant for 2009 — Decision not to raise objections — Service of general economic interest — Criterion of proportionality — No serious difficulties)

12

2012/C 250/22

Case T-60/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2012 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ROYAL SHAKESPEARE — Earlier Community word mark RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY — Relative grounds for invalidity — Mark with a reputation — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of association — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

13

2012/C 250/23

Case T-559/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark natural beauty — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

13

2012/C 250/24

Case T-587/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Interspeed v Commission (Non-contractual liability — External relations — Call for tenders issued by the EAR concerning work at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing, the financing of the works and other connected measures — No causal link)

13

2012/C 250/25

Case T-135/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CLORALEX — Earlier national word marks CLOROX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

14

2012/C 250/26

Case T-37/11: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — Hungary v Commission (Action for annulment — Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) — Contribution to Hungary in respect of the period from 2004 to 2006 — Recovery of part of the amount paid — Challengeable act — Inadmissibility)

14

2012/C 250/27

Case T-531/11: Order of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Hamas v Council (Annulment action — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Lis pendens)

14

2012/C 250/28

Case T-546/11: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission (Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure — Acts inseparable from the contract — Inadmissibility)

15

2012/C 250/29

Case T-168/11: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament

15

2012/C 250/30

Case T-260/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

16

2012/C 250/31

Case T-272/12: Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission

17

2012/C 250/32

Case T-275/12: Action brought on 15 June 2012 — FC Dynamo-Minsk v Council

17

2012/C 250/33

Case T-276/12: Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Chyzh and Others v Council

18

2012/C 250/34

Case T-290/12: Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Poland v Commission

18

2012/C 250/35

Case T-296/12: Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Health Food Manufacturer’s Association and Others v Commission

19

2012/C 250/36

Case T-301/12: Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

20

2012/C 250/37

Case T-145/10: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2012 — Solae v OHIM — Delitaste (alpha taste)

20

2012/C 250/38

Case T-656/11: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council

20

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/1

---

2012/C 250/01

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

OJ C 243, 11.8.2012

Past publications

OJ C 235, 4.8.2012

OJ C 227, 28.7.2012

OJ C 217, 21.7.2012

OJ C 209, 14.7.2012

OJ C 200, 7.7.2012

OJ C 194, 30.6.2012

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor — United Kingdom) — Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks

(Case C-307/10) (1)

(Trade marks - Approximation of laws of the Member States - Directive 2008/95/EC - Identification of the goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought - Requirements of clarity and precision - Use of class headings of the Nice Classification for the purposes of the registration of trade marks - Whether permissible - Extent of protection of the trade mark)

2012/C 250/02

Language of the case: English

Referring court

The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys

Defendant: Registrar of Trade Marks

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor — Interpretation of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Classification of goods or services for the purposes of registration — Degree of clarity and precision required as regards the identification of the goods or services covered by a trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the goods and services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought to be identified by the applicant with sufficient clarity and precision to enable the competent authorities and economic operators, on that basis alone, to determine the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark.

Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the use of the general indications of the class headings of the Classification referred to in Article 1 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, concluded at the Nice Diplomatic Conference on 15 June 1957, last revised in Geneva on 13 May 1977 and amended on 28 September 1979, to identify the goods and services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought, provided that such identification is sufficiently clear and precise.

An applicant for a national trade mark who uses all the general indications of a particular class heading of the Classification referred to in Article 1 of the Nice Agreement to identify the goods or services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought must specify whether its application for registration is intended to cover all the goods or services included in the alphabetical list of that class or only some of those goods or services. If the application concerns only some of those goods or services, the applicant is required to specify which of the goods or services in that class are intended to be covered.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) v European Commission

(Case C-452/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes - Banking sector - Taxation of capital gains - Substitute tax - Selectivity)

2012/C 250/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/711/EC of 11 March 2008 on State aid C 15/07 (ex NN 20/07) implemented by Italy on the tax incentives in favour of certain restructured banks (OJ 2008 L 237, p. 70).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission [2010] ECR II-3323 to the extent that it infringed Article 107(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission [2010] ECR II-3323 to the extent that it infringed Article 107(1) TFEU;

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL);

| 3. | Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) and the European Commission to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

| 4. | Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) to pay the costs incurred before the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) to pay the costs incurred before the General Court of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v SEWAR spol. s r.o.

(Case C-514/10) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Temporal scope - Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union)

2012/C 250/04

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH

Defendant: SEWAR spol. s r. o.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Interpretation of Article 66(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Temporal scope — Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

Article 66(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, for that regulation to be applicable for the purpose of the recognition and enforcement of a judgment, it is necessary that at the time of delivery of that judgment the regulation was in force both in the Member State of origin and in the Member State addressed.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.11.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner

(Case C-5/11) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Industrial and commercial property - Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected - Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law - Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law)

2012/C 250/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party in the main proceedings

Titus Alexander Jochen Donner

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Industrial and commercial property — Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected — Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law — Situation in which the transfer of property to the purchaser was made in the Member State of origin and the transfer of the de facto power of disposal takes place in the State of destination — Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law

Operative part of the judgment

A trader who directs his advertising at members of the public residing in a given Member State and creates or makes available to them a specific delivery system and payment method, or allows a third party to do so, thereby enabling those members of the public to receive delivery of copies of works protected by copyright in that same Member State, makes, in the Member State where the delivery takes place, a ‘distribution to the public’ under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from bringing a prosecution under national criminal law for the offence of aiding and abetting the prohibited distribution of copyright-protected works where such works are distributed to the public on the territory of that Member State in the context of a sale, aimed specifically at the public of that State, concluded in another Member State where those works are not protected by copyright or the protection conferred on them is not enforceable as against third parties.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Sommer v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien

(Case C-15/11) (1)

(Accession of new Member States - Republic of Bulgaria - Member State legislation making the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market - Directive 2004/114/EC - Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service)

2012/C 250/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leopold Sommer

Defendant: Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12), particularly of Article 17 thereof, and of paragraph 14 of Annex VI of the list referred to in Article 20 of the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 104) — Rules of a Member State which make the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market — Possible application of Directive 2004/114/EC

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Paragraph 14 of Point 1 of Annex VI to the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union must be interpreted to mean that the conditions of access to the labour market by Bulgarian students, at the time of the events in the main proceedings, may not be more restrictive than those set out in Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Paragraph 14 of Point 1 of Annex VI to the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union must be interpreted to mean that the conditions of access to the labour market by Bulgarian students, at the time of the events in the main proceedings, may not be more restrictive than those set out in Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service.

| 2. | National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings provides for a more restrictive treatment of Bulgarian nationals than that given to third-country nationals under Directive 2004/114. |
| --- | --- |

2.

National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings provides for a more restrictive treatment of Bulgarian nationals than that given to third-country nationals under Directive 2004/114.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO.

(Case C-78/11) (1)

(Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Sick leave - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take paid annual leave at another time)

2012/C 250/07

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

Defendants: Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, p. 9) — Leave coincides with periods of temporary incapacity for work during periods of sick leave — National regulations do not allow the interruption of paid annual leave and its subsequent recovery in its entirety or for the remaining period

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions under which a worker who becomes unfit for work during a period of paid annual leave is not entitled subsequently to the paid annual leave which coincided with the period of unfitness for work.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/5

---

Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság and the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mahagében kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11) and Péter Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11)

(Joined Cases C-80/11 and C-142/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Conditions governing the exercise of that right - Article 273 - National measures to combat fraud - Practice of the national tax authorities - Refusal of the right to deduct in the event of improper conduct on the part of the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods or services in respect of which the exercise of that right is sought - Burden of proof - Obligation of the taxable person to satisfy himself as to the propriety of the conduct of the issuer of that invoice and to provide proof thereof)

2012/C 250/08

Language of the cases: Hungarian

Referring courts

Baranya Megyei Bíróság, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mahagében kft (C-80/11), Péter Dávid (C-142/11)

Defendants: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11), Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Conditions for exercising the right to deduct input tax according to the practice of the national tax authorities — Obligation of the taxable person to prove that the transaction listed on the invoice actually occurred and that the company issuing the invoice acted properly

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a), 220(1) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax which he is liable to pay, the amount of the value added tax due or paid in respect of the services supplied to him, on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly, without that authority establishing, on the basis of objective evidence, that the taxable person concerned knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoice or by another trader acting earlier in the chain of supply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a), 220(1) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax which he is liable to pay, the amount of the value added tax due or paid in respect of the services supplied to him, on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly, without that authority establishing, on the basis of objective evidence, that the taxable person concerned knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoice or by another trader acting earlier in the chain of supply.

| 2. | Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses the right to deduct on the ground that the taxable person did not satisfy himself that the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods in respect of which the exercise of the right to deduct is sought had the status of a taxable person, that he was in possession of the goods in question and was in a position to supply them, and that he had satisfied his obligations as regards declaration and payment of value added tax, or on the ground that, in addition to that invoice, that taxable person is not in possession of other documents capable of demonstrating that those conditions were fulfilled, although the substantive and formal conditions laid down by Directive 2006/112 for exercising the right to deduct were fulfilled and the taxable person is not in possession of any material justifying the suspicion that irregularities or fraud have been committed within that invoice issuer’s sphere of activity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses the right to deduct on the ground that the taxable person did not satisfy himself that the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods in respect of which the exercise of the right to deduct is sought had the status of a taxable person, that he was in possession of the goods in question and was in a position to supply them, and that he had satisfied his obligations as regards declaration and payment of value added tax, or on the ground that, in addition to that invoice, that taxable person is not in possession of other documents capable of demonstrating that those conditions were fulfilled, although the substantive and formal conditions laid down by Directive 2006/112 for exercising the right to deduct were fulfilled and the taxable person is not in possession of any material justifying the suspicion that irregularities or fraud have been committed within that invoice issuer’s sphere of activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala

(Case C-84/11) (1)

(Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - National licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies - Establishment of branch pharmacies - Conditions which differ according to whether the pharmacy is a private pharmacy or a University of Helsinki pharmacy - University of Helsinki Pharmacy having specific tasks in connection with pharmacy teaching and pharmaceutical services)

2012/C 250/09

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties in the main proceedings

Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala

Intervening party Helsingin yliopiston apteekki

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 106(2) TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies — National law providing for a licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies with conditions which are more favourable for University pharmacies than for private pharmacies — University Pharmacy having specific responsibilities relating to pharmacy teaching and to the supply of medicines

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a licensing scheme for the operation of branch pharmacies specific to the Helsingin yliopiston apteekki which is more favourable than that applicable to private pharmacies, provided that — which is for the referring court to verify — the branches of the Helsingin yliopiston apteekki actually participate in the accomplishment of the specific tasks relating to the teaching of pharmacy students, research on pharmaceutical services and the manufacture of rare pharmaceutical preparations conferred on the latter by national law

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-135/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Public access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 - Article 4(5) - Scope - Documents originating from a Member State - Objection by the Member State to disclosure of the documents - Extent of review by the institution and the European Union judicature of the Member State’s reasons for objecting - Production of the document to the European Union judicature)

2012/C 250/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH (represented by: S. Crosby and S. Santoro, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission dismissing the application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2008 refusing in part to grant the applicant access to documents transmitted to the Commission by the German authorities in connection with a procedure for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the application brought by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH for the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 19 June 2008 refusing to grant it access to a document transmitted to the European Commission by the German authorities in connection with a procedure for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the application brought by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH for the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 19 June 2008 refusing to grant it access to a document transmitted to the European Commission by the German authorities in connection with a procedure for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

(Case C-177/11) (1)

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(2)(b) - Margin of discretion of the Member States)

2012/C 250/11

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton

Defendants: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) and Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Condition, for carrying out an assessment of the environmental effects of a given plan or programme, that it may have significant effects on a special area of conservation — Discretion of the Member States

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions requiring an assessment under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, including the condition that the plan may have a significant effect on the site concerned, being met in respect of that plan. The examination carried out to determine whether that latter condition is fulfilled is necessarily limited to the question as to whether it can be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that that plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-223/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - European Union water policy - River basin district management plans - Publication and notification to the Commission - None - Information and consultation of the public on the envisaged management plans - None)

2012/C 250/12

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and I. Chatzigiannis, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

Re:

Infringement of Articles 13(1), (2) and (6), 14(1) and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — River basin district management plans — Publication — Information and consultation of the public — Commission not notified of copy management plans

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rules that, the Portuguese Republic, by failing within the prescribed period:






  — | to publish the national and international river basin district management plans; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Rules that, the Portuguese Republic, by failing within the prescribed period:

—

to publish the national and international river basin district management plans;

| — | to publish and to submit to the public, including users, for comment the envisaged river basin district management plans, and |
| --- | --- |

—

to publish and to submit to the public, including users, for comment the envisaged river basin district management plans, and

| — | to send the European Commission the copies of those plans, |
| --- | --- |

—

to send the European Commission the copies of those plans,

has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 13(6) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14(1)(c) and Article 15(1) of that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom NV

(Case C-294/11) (1)

(Eighth VAT Directive - Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country - Time-limit within which refund applications are to be submitted - Time bar)

2012/C 250/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Elsacom NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — Period of six months from the end of the calendar year in which value added tax became chargeable within which to submit an application for refund of that tax — The legal significance of the period laid down by the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The six-month time limit laid down in the last sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — for submitting an application for a value added tax refund is a mandatory time limit.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, handelend onder de naam ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Case C-227/12)

2012/C 250/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., TUI Airlines Nederland B.V., handelend onder de naam ArkeFly

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Articles 7 and 16 of the Regulation, (1) together with the principle of Union loyalty, be interpreted in such a way that those Articles (in conjunction with national law) create for an administrative authority like the defendant the competence or the obligation to take enforcement action in respect of air carriers where they have failed to pay passengers compensation for delays, even where those passengers themselves have recourse to the courts in that regard, as laid down in Article 33 of the Montreal Convention? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Articles 7 and 16 of the Regulation, (1) together with the principle of Union loyalty, be interpreted in such a way that those Articles (in conjunction with national law) create for an administrative authority like the defendant the competence or the obligation to take enforcement action in respect of air carriers where they have failed to pay passengers compensation for delays, even where those passengers themselves have recourse to the courts in that regard, as laid down in Article 33 of the Montreal Convention? (2)

| 2. | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the imposition of administrative orders for periodic penalty payments such as those at issue here also form part of the possibility of enforcement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the imposition of administrative orders for periodic penalty payments such as those at issue here also form part of the possibility of enforcement?

| 3. | Does it make any difference in that regard whether:






  (a) | the air carriers have drawn passengers’ attention to those rights? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Does it make any difference in that regard whether:

(a)

the air carriers have drawn passengers’ attention to those rights?

| (b) | in the case of an alleged lack of compliance with Article 14 of the Regulation, an order for periodic penalty payments imposed on the air carriers was preceded by the imposition of a sanction due to non compliance with that Article? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in the case of an alleged lack of compliance with Article 14 of the Regulation, an order for periodic penalty payments imposed on the air carriers was preceded by the imposition of a sanction due to non compliance with that Article?

| (c) | the passengers concerned have made known to the air carriers whether or not they wish to receive that compensation? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the passengers concerned have made known to the air carriers whether or not they wish to receive that compensation?

| (d) | the defendant has not chosen the instrument of an order for coercive administrative action (where, in the case of the air carriers’ non compliance with the order, the defendant himself pays the passengers out at the air carriers’ expense), but rather, the instrument of an order for periodic penalty payments (where, in the case of non compliance with the order, the air carriers are liable to the defendant for an amount equal to the total compensation payable, which amount accrues to public funds)? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the defendant has not chosen the instrument of an order for coercive administrative action (where, in the case of the air carriers’ non compliance with the order, the defendant himself pays the passengers out at the air carriers’ expense), but rather, the instrument of an order for periodic penalty payments (where, in the case of non compliance with the order, the air carriers are liable to the defendant for an amount equal to the total compensation payable, which amount accrues to public funds)?

---

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

(2)  The Convention concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 30 May 2012 — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

(Case C-267/12)

2012/C 250/15

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frédéric Hay

Defendant: Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

Question referred

Must Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 be interpreted as meaning that the choice of the national legislature to allow only persons of different sexes to marry can constitute a legitimate, appropriate and necessary aim such as to justify indirect discrimination resulting from the fact that a collective agreement which reserves an advantage in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry, thereby necessarily excluding from the benefit of that advantage same-sex partners who have entered into a civil solidarity pact?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln

(Case C-275/12)

2012/C 250/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Samantha Elrick

Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

Question referred

Do Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude a rule of national law according to which a German national who has her permanent residence in Germany and attends an educational establishment in a Member State of the European Union is refused a study grant under the Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz (BAföG) in respect of her attendance at that foreign educational establishment because the educational course attended abroad is of only one year’s duration, whereas she could have received a study grant under the BAföG for comparable studies in Germany, which would also have lasted for one year?

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 4 June 2012 — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water

(Case C-279/12)

2012/C 250/17

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fish Legal, Emily Shirley

Defendants: The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water

Questions referred

Article 2.2(b) of Directive 2003/4/EC
   (1)

| 1. | In considering whether a natural or legal person is one ‘performing public administrative functions under national law’, is the applicable law and analysis purely a national one? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In considering whether a natural or legal person is one ‘performing public administrative functions under national law’, is the applicable law and analysis purely a national one?

| 2. | If it is not, what EU law criteria may or may not be used to determine whether:






  (i) | the function in question is in substance a 'public administrative one; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If it is not, what EU law criteria may or may not be used to determine whether:

(i)

the function in question is in substance a 'public administrative one;

| (ii) | national law has in substance vested such function in that person? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

national law has in substance vested such function in that person?

Article 2.2(c) of Directive 2003/4/EC

| 3. | What is meant by a person being 'under the control of a body or person falling within Article 2.2(a) or (b)? In particular, what is the nature, form and degree of control required and what criteria may or may not be used to identify such control? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is meant by a person being 'under the control of a body or person falling within Article 2.2(a) or (b)? In particular, what is the nature, form and degree of control required and what criteria may or may not be used to identify such control?

| 4. | Is an “emanation of the State” (under paragraph 20 of the judgment in Foster v British Gas plc (Case C-188189) necessarily a person caught by Article 2.2(c)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is an “emanation of the State” (under paragraph 20 of the judgment in Foster v British Gas plc (Case C-188189) necessarily a person caught by Article 2.2(c)?

Article 2.2(b) and (c)

| 5. | Where a person falls within either provision in respect of some of its functions, responsibilities or services, are its obligations to provide environmental information confined to the information relevant to those functions, responsibilities or services or do they extend to all environmental information held for any purpose? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Where a person falls within either provision in respect of some of its functions, responsibilities or services, are its obligations to provide environmental information confined to the information relevant to those functions, responsibilities or services or do they extend to all environmental information held for any purpose?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC

OJ L 41, p. 26

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 6 June 2012 — Fazenda Pública v ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda

(Case C-282/12)

2012/C 250/18

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fazenda Pública, ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda

Defendants: ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer, Lda, Fazenda Pública

Question referred

Do Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU (Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that contained in Paragraph 61 CIRC (Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Coletivas) in the wording resulting from [Decree-Law No] 198/2001 of [3 July 2001], as amended by [Law No] 60 A/2005 of 30 [December 2005] (State Budget Act for 2006), which, in connection with the indebtedness of a taxable person residing in Portugal to an entity of a non-member country with which it maintains special relations within the meaning of Paragraph 58(4) CIRC, does not allow the setting off against tax of interest relating to the part of its indebtedness regarded as excessive under Paragraph 61(3) CIRC, borne and paid by a taxable person residing within national territory on the same basis as interest borne and paid by a taxable person residing in Portugal who is found to be excessively indebted to an entity residing in Portugal with which it maintains special relations?

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgerichts Laufen (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2012 — Strafverfahren v Gjoko Filev and Adnan Osmani

(Case C-297/12)

2012/C 250/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgerichts Laufen

Parties to the main proceedings

Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Traunstein

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 (1) to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from reinforcing expulsions or deportations under administrative law with criminal sanctions, if the expulsion/deportation occurred more than 5 years prior to re-entry? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 (1) to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from reinforcing expulsions or deportations under administrative law with criminal sanctions, if the expulsion/deportation occurred more than 5 years prior to re-entry?

| 2. | Is Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as prohibiting the Federal Republic of Germany from reinforcing expulsions or deportations under administrative law with criminal sanctions, if the expulsion/deportation occurred more than 5 years prior to the German transposition law of 22 November 2011 entering into force? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as prohibiting the Federal Republic of Germany from reinforcing expulsions or deportations under administrative law with criminal sanctions, if the expulsion/deportation occurred more than 5 years prior to the German transposition law of 22 November 2011 entering into force?

| 3. | Does national legislation which provides that expulsions/deportations in principle have unlimited effect, unless the concerned person lodges an application for a time-limit, comply with EU law for the purposes of Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115? Does such a provision comply with recital 4 in the preamble to the directive in the sense of a well managed migration policy through clear, transparent and fair rules? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does national legislation which provides that expulsions/deportations in principle have unlimited effect, unless the concerned person lodges an application for a time-limit, comply with EU law for the purposes of Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115? Does such a provision comply with recital 4 in the preamble to the directive in the sense of a well managed migration policy through clear, transparent and fair rules?

| 4. | Is the Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from providing that expulsions/deportations, which predated the period of non-transposition of the directive by 5 years or more, may subsequently be made the basis of a criminal law sanction again, if the expulsion/deportation was based on a conviction under criminal law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from providing that expulsions/deportations, which predated the period of non-transposition of the directive by 5 years or more, may subsequently be made the basis of a criminal law sanction again, if the expulsion/deportation was based on a conviction under criminal law?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals; OJ 2008 L 343, p. 98.

---

General Court

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Smurfit Kappa Group v Commission

(Case T-304/08) (1)

(State aid - Corrugated case materials - Aid for the construction of a paper mill - Guidelines on national regional aid - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Admissibility - Validity of the authority conferred by a legal person on its lawyers - Adoption of a decision upon conclusion of the preliminary examination phase - Standing to bring proceedings - Procedural rights of interested parties - Serious difficulties justifying the initiation of the formal investigation procedure - Exercise by the Commission of its discretion - Article 87(3)(a) EC - Article 88(2) and (3) EC - Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 44(5) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure)

2012/C 250/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Smurfit Kappa Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Propapier PM 2 GmbH, formerly Propapier PM2 GmbH & Co. KG (Eisenhüttenstadt, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and C. Herrmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1107 of 2 April 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the national regional aid which the German authorities intend to grant to Propapier PM2 for the construction of a paper mill in Eisenhüttenstadt (region of Brandenburg-Nordost) (State aid N 582/2007 — Germany).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 1107 of 2 April 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the national regional aid which the German authorities intend to grant to Propapier PM2 for the construction of a paper mill in Eisenhüttenstadt (region of Brandenburg-Nordost) (State aid N 582/2007 — Germany); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 1107 of 2 April 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the national regional aid which the German authorities intend to grant to Propapier PM2 for the construction of a paper mill in Eisenhüttenstadt (region of Brandenburg-Nordost) (State aid N 582/2007 — Germany);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission and Propapier PM 2 GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission and Propapier PM 2 GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — TF1 and Others v Commission

(Case T-520/09) (1)

(State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid intended to be granted by the French Republic to France Télévisions - Budgetary grant for 2009 - Decision not to raise objections - Service of general economic interest - Criterion of proportionality - No serious difficulties)

2012/C 250/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Télévision française 1 (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France); Métropole télévision (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France); and Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: J.P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents); and France Télévisions (Paris, France) (represented by: J.P. Gunther and A. Giraud, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 September 2009 concerning a budgetary grant in favour of France Télévisions in so far as the Commission raises no objections in that decision regarding a budgetary grant of a maximum amount of EUR 450 million for 2009.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as unfounded;

| 2. | Orders Télévision française 1 (TF1), Métropole télévision (M6) and Canal + to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Télévision française 1 (TF1), Métropole télévision (M6) and Canal + to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2012 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE)

(Case T-60/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ROYAL SHAKESPEARE - Earlier Community word mark RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY - Relative grounds for invalidity - Mark with a reputation - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of association - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

2012/C 250/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: H.-G. Zeiner and S. Di Natale, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Royal Shakespeare Company (Warwickshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Barnett, Solicitor, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 317/2009-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between The Royal Shakespeare Company and Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty)

(Case T-559/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark natural beauty - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 250/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France) (represented: initially by R. Dissmann and A. Steegmann and subsequently by R. Dissmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 971/2010-1) concerning registration of the figurative sign natural beauty as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratoire Garnier et Cie to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratoire Garnier et Cie to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Interspeed v Commission

(Case T-587/10) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - External relations - Call for tenders issued by the EAR concerning work at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing, the financing of the works and other connected measures - No causal link)

2012/C 250/24

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: M. Bošnjak, lawyer)

Defendant: EuropeanCommission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and B. Rous, Agents)

Re:

Application for the compensation of damage allegedly resulting from works carried out at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing under a contract financed by the EAR.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Order Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)

(Case T-135/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CLORALEX - Earlier national word marks CLOROX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 250/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Clorox Company (Oakland, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Chaudri, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Industrias Alen SA de CV (Nuevo León, Mexico) (represented by: J. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between The Clorox Company and Industrias Alen SA de CV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by The Clorox Company; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by The Clorox Company;

| 3. | Orders Industrias Alen SA de CV to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Industrias Alen SA de CV to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/14

---

Order of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-37/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) - Contribution to Hungary in respect of the period from 2004 to 2006 - Recovery of part of the amount paid - Challengeable act - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 250/26

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó and G. Koós, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Coudert, Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of debit note No 3241011280 issued by the Commission on 28 October 2010 after the final report on the clearance of the accounts of the Schengen Facility concerning aid paid to Hungary during the period from 2004 to 2006 was sent to Hungary.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Hungary is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hungary is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/14

---

Order of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Hamas v Council

(Case T-531/11) (1)

(Annulment action - Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism - Lis pendens)

2012/C 250/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hamas (Damascus, Syria and Gaza, Gaza Strip) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council (represented: initially by T. Szostak and G. Marhic, and subsequently by B. Driessen and G.Étienne, Agents)

Re:

Initially, action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), and Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 47), in so far as the applicant organisation’s name is maintained on the list of persons, groups and entities to which the freezing of funds and economic resources laid down with a view to combating terrorism.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to give a ruling on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to give a ruling on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Hamas is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Hamas is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/15

---

Order of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission

(Case T-546/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure - Acts inseparable from the contract - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 250/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and B. Conte, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 2 August 2011 confirming the conclusions of the financial audit concerning the financial statements declared by Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, concerning four contracts concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-06), and informing Technion of the next steps in the procedure.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/15

---

Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament

(Case T-168/11)

2012/C 250/29

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: AQ (Żary, Poland) (represented by: K. Rosiak, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant’s appointed representative requests the Court to:

| — | declare that the applicant’s action is inadmissible and that there is no need to examine it; and to |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the applicant’s action is inadmissible and that there is no need to examine it; and to

| — | declare that there is no basis on which the applicant can receive compensation in view of the fact that no actual and certain harm was caused by any act or omission of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there is no basis on which the applicant can receive compensation in view of the fact that no actual and certain harm was caused by any act or omission of the European Parliament.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his submissions, the applicant’s appointed representative relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law:






  — | Unless it is established that the European Parliament’s letter of 7 July 2008 contains a decision of the Petitions Committee relating to an earlier petition of the applicant, the content of which corresponds in full to the content of that petition, it may be assumed that there was, in the present case, satisfaction of the condition relating to breach by the European Parliament of essential procedural requirements (Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament) and that the European Parliament failed to issue an act to the applicant in response to the petition addressed to it; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law:

—

Unless it is established that the European Parliament’s letter of 7 July 2008 contains a decision of the Petitions Committee relating to an earlier petition of the applicant, the content of which corresponds in full to the content of that petition, it may be assumed that there was, in the present case, satisfaction of the condition relating to breach by the European Parliament of essential procedural requirements (Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament) and that the European Parliament failed to issue an act to the applicant in response to the petition addressed to it;

| 2. | Second plea in law:






  — | In view, however, of the fact that the petition does not concern matters coming within the field of activity of the European Union, the applicant does not have any legal interest in bringing the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law:

—

In view, however, of the fact that the petition does not concern matters coming within the field of activity of the European Union, the applicant does not have any legal interest in bringing the action;

| 3. | Third plea in law:






  — | furthermore, in view of the fact that the periods for effectively bringing an action under both Article 230 EC (Article 263 TFEU) and Article 232 EC (Article 265 TFEU) had already expired at the time when the applicant applied for legal aid, the action is inadmissible. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law:

—

furthermore, in view of the fact that the periods for effectively bringing an action under both Article 230 EC (Article 263 TFEU) and Article 232 EC (Article 265 TFEU) had already expired at the time when the applicant applied for legal aid, the action is inadmissible.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/16

---

Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-260/12)

2012/C 250/30

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Samoni and N. Dafniou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | grant the application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for annulment;

| — | annul the contested decision of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Commission;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs;

| — | join, on account of identity of the factual and legal grounds, the present action for annulment with the similar action brought by the Hellenic Republic against the European Commission in Case T-105/12. |
| --- | --- |

—

join, on account of identity of the factual and legal grounds, the present action for annulment with the similar action brought by the Hellenic Republic against the European Commission in Case T-105/12.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment (under Article 263 TFEU) of Commission Decision 416117 of 11 April 2012‘relating to continued payment by the Hellenic Republic of the daily penalty payment of EUR 31 536 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-65/05’, in so far as making of the penalty payment is sought from 22 August 2011 onwards. Under the aforementioned contested decision, given that, according to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic appears not to have undertaken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05 and subsequently its second judgment in Case C-109/08, the Hellenic Republic is called upon to pay the sum of EUR 3 847 392 as a penalty payment for the period from 1 December 2011 until 31 March 2012.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

| 1. | First, misappraisal on the part of the Commission, in relation to adoption by the Hellenic Republic of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice
  The Hellenic Republic submits that the defendant appraised and interpreted incorrectly the measures adopted by the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment. The Hellenic Republic maintains that it has taken all the necessary measures to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment in adopting Law 4002/2011 by which the contested articles of Law 3037/2002 are repealed, in pursuance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, misappraisal on the part of the Commission, in relation to adoption by the Hellenic Republic of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice

The Hellenic Republic submits that the defendant appraised and interpreted incorrectly the measures adopted by the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment. The Hellenic Republic maintains that it has taken all the necessary measures to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment in adopting Law 4002/2011 by which the contested articles of Law 3037/2002 are repealed, in pursuance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05.

| 2. | Second, exceeding by the Commission of its power
  The Commission exceeded the limits of its mandate as guardian of the Treaty, since it did not confine itself, as required of it, to establishing whether or not measures for compliance were clearly carried out. Furthermore, it went beyond the limits of the Court of Justice’s judgments, given that the Hellenic Republic complied fully with those judgments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, exceeding by the Commission of its power

The Commission exceeded the limits of its mandate as guardian of the Treaty, since it did not confine itself, as required of it, to establishing whether or not measures for compliance were clearly carried out. Furthermore, it went beyond the limits of the Court of Justice’s judgments, given that the Hellenic Republic complied fully with those judgments.

| 3. | Third, deficiency of reasoning on the part of the Commission
  In its decision contested by the Hellenic Republic, the Commission did not explain, and did not set out expressly, the reasons for which it sought the continued making of the penalty payment for the period after the adoption of Law 4002/2011, that is to say, from 22 August 2011 until 31 March 2012.
  The Hellenic Republic disputes that additional sum since it considers that it complied fully with the judgments of the Court of Justice once that law was promulgated. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third, deficiency of reasoning on the part of the Commission

In its decision contested by the Hellenic Republic, the Commission did not explain, and did not set out expressly, the reasons for which it sought the continued making of the penalty payment for the period after the adoption of Law 4002/2011, that is to say, from 22 August 2011 until 31 March 2012.

The Hellenic Republic disputes that additional sum since it considers that it complied fully with the judgments of the Court of Justice once that law was promulgated.

| 4. | Fourth, incorrect use of legal basis
  The Hellenic Republic submits that, if the Commission considered that Law 4002/2001 was not being applied correctly by the Hellenic Republic, it had to use Article 258 TFEU and initiate a fresh infringement procedure, and not require continued making of the penalty payment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth, incorrect use of legal basis

The Hellenic Republic submits that, if the Commission considered that Law 4002/2001 was not being applied correctly by the Hellenic Republic, it had to use Article 258 TFEU and initiate a fresh infringement procedure, and not require continued making of the penalty payment.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/17

---

Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission

(Case T-272/12)

2012/C 250/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. (Brno, Czech Republic) and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. (Praha, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Desai, Solicitor, J. Schmidt and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission Decision of 28 March 2012, relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (1) (refusal to submit to an inspection) in Case COMP/39793 — EPH and Others; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision of 28 March 2012, relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (1) (refusal to submit to an inspection) in Case COMP/39793 — EPH and Others;

| — | In the alternative, annul the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in its entirety or reduce it to an appropriate amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in its entirety or reduce it to an appropriate amount;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in violation of essential procedural requirements. In particular, the applicants submit that the contested decision was adopted in violation of their rights of defence, due to irregularities in the conduct of the inspection, notably because the Commission did not ensure that the relevant individuals had been properly informed of their duties in the course of the inspection nor of the consequences of non compliance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in violation of essential procedural requirements. In particular, the applicants submit that the contested decision was adopted in violation of their rights of defence, due to irregularities in the conduct of the inspection, notably because the Commission did not ensure that the relevant individuals had been properly informed of their duties in the course of the inspection nor of the consequences of non compliance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission's finding that the applicants refused to submit to the inspection is unfounded and disproportionate. The applicants argue that the evidence put forward by the Commission for the unblocking of an email account or the diversion of emails to the applicants' server in the case at hand was not sufficient to substantiate an infringement of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The applicants also argue that the inspection was not obstructed with intention or negligence by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission's finding that the applicants refused to submit to the inspection is unfounded and disproportionate. The applicants argue that the evidence put forward by the Commission for the unblocking of an email account or the diversion of emails to the applicants' server in the case at hand was not sufficient to substantiate an infringement of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The applicants also argue that the inspection was not obstructed with intention or negligence by the applicants.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is adopted in violation of the ‘presumption of innocence’ principle insofar as the Commission approached the case with insufficient care and transparency, whilst there were indications that the Commission was negatively predisposed against the applicants, as a result of unrelated events that could not be attributed to the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is adopted in violation of the ‘presumption of innocence’ principle insofar as the Commission approached the case with insufficient care and transparency, whilst there were indications that the Commission was negatively predisposed against the applicants, as a result of unrelated events that could not be attributed to the applicants.

| 4. | Fourth (alternative) plea in law, put forward in support of the second form of order sought, in case the General Court decides not to annul the contested decision in its entirety, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law and infringed the principles of proportionality and due motivation when determining the fine. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth (alternative) plea in law, put forward in support of the second form of order sought, in case the General Court decides not to annul the contested decision in its entirety, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law and infringed the principles of proportionality and due motivation when determining 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 L1, p. 1)

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/17

---

Action brought on 15 June 2012 — FC Dynamo-Minsk v Council

(Case T-275/12)

2012/C 250/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Football Club ‘Dynamo-Minsk’ ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor and B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012, implementing Article 8a(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012, implementing Article 8a(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37), to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by errors of law and manifest errors of assessment because the Council failed to take into account the specific nature of sport and/or the fundamental right of cultural diversity when it imposed the restrictive measures upon the applicant which is a European professional football club with an important sporting and cultural role. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by errors of law and manifest errors of assessment because the Council failed to take into account the specific nature of sport and/or the fundamental right of cultural diversity when it imposed the restrictive measures upon the applicant which is a European professional football club with an important sporting and cultural role.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicant on the lists of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicant on the lists of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the rights of defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, including the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the rights of defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, including the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the right to property in that they amount to an unjustified interference of the applicant’s ability to function as a European professional football club and to fulfil its social, educational and cultural functions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the right to property in that they amount to an unjustified interference of the applicant’s ability to function as a European professional football club and to fulfil its social, educational and cultural functions.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the principle of proportionality, in particular as regards the applicant’s right to property and its right of cultural diversity, in particular as they do not provide for any safeguards to ensure that the applicant can continue to exercise its sporting and cultural functions as a European professional football club. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the principle of proportionality, in particular as regards the applicant’s right to property and its right of cultural diversity, in particular as they do not provide for any safeguards to ensure that the applicant can continue to exercise its sporting and cultural functions as a European professional football club.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/18

---

Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Chyzh and Others v Council

(Case T-276/12)

2012/C 250/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Yury Aleksandrovich Chyzh (Minsk, Belarus); Triple TAA (Minsk, Belarus); NefteKhimTrading STAA (Minsk, Belarus); Askargoterminal ZAT (Minsk, Belarus); Bereza Silicate Products Plant AAT (Bereza District, Belarus); Variant TAA (Berezovsky District, Belarus); Triple-Dekor STAA (Minsk, Belarus); KvartsMelProm SZAT (Khotislav, Belarus); Altersolutions SZAT (Minsk, Belarus); Prostoremarket SZAT (Minsk, Belarus); AquaTriple STAA (Minsk, Belarus); Rakovsky brovar TAA (Minsk, Belarus); TriplePharm STAA (Logoysk, Belarus); and Triple-Veles TAA (Molodechno, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, and B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 87, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 87, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (JO L 87, p. 95), in so far as it concerns the applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (JO L 87, p. 95), in so far as it concerns the applicants; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that the contested Council measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons to whom restrictive measures apply, or, in the alternative, that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested Council measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons to whom restrictive measures apply, or, in the alternative, that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that the contested Council measures infringe rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicants with the possibility to effectively exercise their rights, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicants’ right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested Council measures infringe rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicants with the possibility to effectively exercise their rights, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicants’ right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/18

---

Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-290/12)

2012/C 250/34

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 1(2), (3), (4), (6), (12) and (13), Annexes I and II, and Article 2(1) to (3), in conjunction with Article 3, of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2012 of 4 April 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ L 99 of 5.4.2012, p. 21); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1(2), (3), (4), (6), (12) and (13), Annexes I and II, and Article 2(1) to (3), in conjunction with Article 3, of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2012 of 4 April 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ L 99 of 5.4.2012, p. 21);

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law:






  — | infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law:

—

infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations;

| 2. | Second plea in law:






  — | infringement of the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law:

—

infringement of the principle of proportionality;

| 3. | Third plea in law:






  — | breach of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of the inadequate reasons given for the contested provisions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law:

—

breach of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of the inadequate reasons given for the contested provisions;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law:






  — | infringement of the principles of solidarity and of loyal cooperation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law:

—

infringement of the principles of solidarity and of loyal cooperation.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/19

---

Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Health Food Manufacturer’s Association and Others v Commission

(Case T-296/12)

2012/C 250/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: The Health Food Manufacturer’s Association (East Molesey, United Kingdom); Quest Vitamins Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom); Natures Aid Ltd (Kirkham, United Kingdom); Natuur- & gezonheidsProducten Nederland (Ermelo, Netherlands); et New Care Supplements BV (Oisterwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Kelly and G. Castle, Solicitors, and P. Bogaert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ L 136, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ L 136, p. 1);

| — | Annul Commission Decision of 16 May 2012 adopting a list of permitted health claims and creating a list of so-called on-hold health claims that are neither rejected nor authorised by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision of 16 May 2012 adopting a list of permitted health claims and creating a list of so-called on-hold health claims that are neither rejected nor authorised by the Commission;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is illegal for the following reasons:

| 1. | First plea in law, that






  — | the adoption of a permitted list of general function health claims while keeping certain claims under the transitional measures of Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (i.e. splitting the assessment process and adopting a partial list of claims under article 13(1)) lacks any legal basis. It further infringes the principles of good administration, legal certainty and non-discrimination for a number of reasons, including: there was no justification for the splitting of the process; the split lacked transparency; there was no consultation or adequate reasons given for the split; some claims are put ‘on-hold’ and continue to benefit from the existing transitional periods under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (despite the legal uncertainty of those transitional periods). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, that

—

the adoption of a permitted list of general function health claims while keeping certain claims under the transitional measures of Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (i.e. splitting the assessment process and adopting a partial list of claims under article 13(1)) lacks any legal basis. It further infringes the principles of good administration, legal certainty and non-discrimination for a number of reasons, including: there was no justification for the splitting of the process; the split lacked transparency; there was no consultation or adequate reasons given for the split; some claims are put ‘on-hold’ and continue to benefit from the existing transitional periods under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (despite the legal uncertainty of those transitional periods).

| 2. | Second plea in law, that






  — | the non-inclusion of many health claims in the permitted list infringes Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 by applying improper assessment criteria, infringes the principle of good administration, legal certainty and the duty of collaboration with national food authorities and the obligation to provide adequate reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, that

—

the non-inclusion of many health claims in the permitted list infringes Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 by applying improper assessment criteria, infringes the principle of good administration, legal certainty and the duty of collaboration with national food authorities and the obligation to provide adequate reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, that






  — | if the pleas submitted above are not upheld, the applicants allege that the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 itself is void because of breach of the right to be heard and breach of legal certainty. The illegality of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is invoked in this application pursuant to Article 277 TFEU and supports the illegality of Regulation (EU) No 432/2012. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, that

—

if the pleas submitted above are not upheld, the applicants allege that the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 itself is void because of breach of the right to be heard and breach of legal certainty. The illegality of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is invoked in this application pursuant to Article 277 TFEU and supports the illegality of Regulation (EU) No 432/2012.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/20

---

Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-301/12)

2012/C 250/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes both Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2) because the Commission was not entitled to re-initiate the Comitology Procedure with a draft decision substantively the same as the version already rejected by the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee, nor was it empowered to adopt the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes both Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2) because the Commission was not entitled to re-initiate the Comitology Procedure with a draft decision substantively the same as the version already rejected by the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee, nor was it empowered to adopt the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event vitiated by fundamental errors of law in the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended) (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event vitiated by fundamental errors of law in the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended) (3).

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13)

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

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

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/20

---

Order of the General Court of 26 June 2012 — Solae v OHIM — Delitaste (alpha taste)

(Case T-145/10) (1)

2012/C 250/37

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

---

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/20

---

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council

(Case T-656/11) (1)

2012/C 250/38

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

---