# Official Journal C 270/17 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 270 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5817 August 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 270

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5817 August 2015

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2015/C 270/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2015/C 270/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2015/C 270/02 | Joined Cases C-226/13, C-245/13, C-247/13 and C-578/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Stefan Fahnenbrock (C-226/13), Holger Priestoph (C-245/13), Matteo Antonio Priestoph (C-245/13), Pia Antonia Priestoph (C-245/13), Rudolf Reznicek (C-247/13), Hans-Jürgen Kickler (C-578/13), Walther Wöhlk (C-578/13), Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk (C-578/13) v Hellenic Republic (References for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 1(1) — Concept of civil or commercial matters — Liability of the State for acta iure imperii) | 2 |
| 2015/C 270/03 | Case C-554/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — the Netherlands) — Z. Zh. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie, Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie v I. O. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 7(4) — Concept of risk to public policy — Circumstances in which Member States may refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure, or may grant a period shorter than seven days) | 3 |
| 2015/C 270/04 | Case C-649/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Versailles — France) — Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA and Others v Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA and Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA v Alan Robert Bloom and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 2(g), 3(2) and 27 — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Main insolvency proceedings — Secondary insolvency proceedings — Conflict of jurisdiction — Exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction — Determination of the applicable law — Determination of the debtor’s assets falling within the secondary insolvency proceedings — Determination of the location of those assets — Assets situated in a third State) | 4 |
| 2015/C 270/05 | Case C-686/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — X AB v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Holdings for business purposes — Legislation of a Member State exempting capital gains and, by the same token, excluding deduction of capital losses — Transfer by a resident company of shares in a non-resident subsidiary — Capital loss resulting from a currency loss) | 5 |
| 2015/C 270/06 | Case C-1/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Base Company NV, formerly KPN Group Belgium NV, Mobistar NV v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Articles 4, 9, 13 and 32 — Universal service obligations and social obligations — Provision of access at a fixed location and provision of telephone services — Affordability of tariffs — Special tariff options — Financing of the universal service obligations — Additional mandatory services — Mobile communication services and/or internet subscription services) | 5 |
| 2015/C 270/07 | Case C-29/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public health — Directive 2004/23/EC — Directive 2006/17/EC — Directive 2006/86/EC — Exclusion of reproductive cells, foetal tissues and embryonic tissues from the scope of national legislation transposing those directives) | 6 |
| 2015/C 270/08 | Case C-51/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Reimbursement of storage costs — Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 — Article 14(3) — Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 — Article 2(2) — Substitute exports of C sugar — Conditions — Actual exchange of C sugar with the replacement sugar — Replacement possible only with sugar produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State — Validity in the light of Articles 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU) | 7 |
| 2015/C 270/09 | Case C-52/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3(1) — Limitation period — Dies a quo — Repeated irregularities — Interruption of the limitation period — Conditions — Competent authority — Person in question — Act relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity — Time-limit equal to twice the limitation period) | 8 |
| 2015/C 270/10 | Case C-58/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8543 70 — Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8543 70 10 and 8543 70 90 — Reading devices for electronic books with translation or dictionary functions) | 9 |
| 2015/C 270/11 | Case C-98/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft and Others v Magyar Állam (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — National taxes on the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades — National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines outside casinos — Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Directive 98/34/EC — Obligation to notify draft technical regulations to the Commission — Member State liability for damage caused by legislation contrary to EU law) | 10 |
| 2015/C 270/12 | Case C-100/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Association médicale européenne (EMA) v European Commission Appeal — Arbitration clause — Cocoon et Dicoems contracts, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Irregularities — Ineligible expenditure — Termination of contracts | 11 |
| 2015/C 270/13 | Case C-256/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (References for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9, 73, 78, first paragraph, point (a), and 79, first paragraph, point (c) — Taxable amount — Inclusion of the amount of municipal land use taxes paid by the company holding the concession for the gas distribution network in the taxable amount for VAT applicable to supplies of services made by that company to the company responsible for marketing the gas) | 12 |
| 2015/C 270/14 | Case C-272/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 7318 and 8302 — Article specially designed to mount child safety gates | 13 |
| 2015/C 270/15 | Case C-216/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2015 — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH | 13 |
| 2015/C 270/16 | Case C-234/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — SC Doris Spedition SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați | 14 |
| 2015/C 270/17 | Case C-235/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor | 14 |
| 2015/C 270/18 | Case C-236/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Dinu Antoci v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor | 15 |
| 2015/C 270/19 | Case C-239/15 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2015 by RFA International, LP against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-466/12: RFA International, LP v European Commission | 15 |
| 2015/C 270/20 | Case C-258/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias | 16 |
| 2015/C 270/21 | Case C-261/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey | 17 |
| 2015/C 270/22 | Case C-274/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 17 |
| 2015/C 270/23 | Case C-286/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 June 2015 — SIA Latvijas propāna gāze v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 18 |
| 2015/C 270/24 | Case C-299/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA) | 19 |
| | General Court |
| 2015/C 270/25 | Joined Cases T-425/04 RENV and T-444/04 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — France v Commission (State aid — Financial measures in favour of France Télécom — Shareholder loan offer — Public statements of the French State — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Absence of extension of the formal investigation procedure — Rights of the defence — Test of the prudent private investor — Normal market conditions — Errors of law — Manifest errors of assessment) | 21 |
| 2015/C 270/26 | Case T-404/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Community figurative mark representing a hand) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing a hand — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law) | 22 |
| 2015/C 270/27 | Joined Cases T-186/13, T-190/13 and T-193/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — Netherlands and Others v Commission (State aid — Sale of land — Aid granted to Schouten-de Jong Bouwfonds by a public-private partnership set up by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg — Reduction in the sale price of land and retroactive exemption from payment of the fees payable for its exploitation and quality — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of aid — Private-investor test — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context) | 22 |
| 2015/C 270/28 | Case T-214/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — Typke v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 — Implied refusal to grant access — Refusal to grant access — Request for modification of the form of order sought submitted in the reply — Time-limit — Withdrawal of the implied decision — No need to adjudicate — Concept of a document — Extraction and organisation of information contained in electronic databases) | 23 |
| 2015/C 270/29 | Case T-489/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — La Rioja Alta v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (VIÑA ALBERDI) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VIÑA ALBERDI — Earlier national figurative mark VILLA ALBERTI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No coexistence of the marks — Likelihood of confusion) | 24 |
| 2015/C 270/30 | Case T-657/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — BH Stores v OHIM — Alex Toys (ALEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALEX — National word and figurative marks ALEX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the marks at issue — No likelihood of confusion) | 24 |
| 2015/C 270/31 | Case T-618/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican tortilla) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community mark — Shape of a Mexican tortilla — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 25 |
| 2015/C 270/32 | Case T-355/11: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 26 |
| 2015/C 270/33 | Case T-573/14: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission (Actions for annulment — Environment — Criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel — Converted paper products — Excluded or limited substances and mixtures — Concentration limits for residual monomers — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 26 |
| 2015/C 270/34 | Case T-274/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bioethanol and ethanol — Administrative procedure — Order to submit to an inspection — Refusal to suspend the investigation — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility) | 27 |
| 2015/C 270/35 | Case T-208/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Universiteit Antwerpen v REA | 28 |
| 2015/C 270/36 | Case T-210/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission | 28 |
| 2015/C 270/37 | Case T-234/15: Action brought on 9 May 2015 — Systema Teknolotzis kai Pliroforikis v Commission | 30 |
| 2015/C 270/38 | Case T-279/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic) | 31 |
| 2015/C 270/39 | Case T-280/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads) | 32 |
| 2015/C 270/40 | Case T-281/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic) | 32 |
| 2015/C 270/41 | Case T-282/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads) | 33 |
| 2015/C 270/42 | Case T-301/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Jochen Schweizer v OHIM (Du bist, was du erlebst.) | 34 |
| 2015/C 270/43 | Case T-305/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Airdata v Commission | 34 |
| 2015/C 270/44 | Case T-307/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission | 35 |
| 2015/C 270/45 | Case T-308/15: Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Reisenthel v OHIM (keep it easy) | 36 |
| 2015/C 270/46 | Case T-309/15 P: Appeal brought on 5 June 2015 by CW against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-124/13 CW v Parliament | 37 |
| 2015/C 270/47 | Case T-312/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON) | 37 |
| 2015/C 270/48 | Case T-324/15: Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Bagpax Cargo Systems (BAG PAX) | 38 |
| 2015/C 270/49 | Case T-344/15: Action brought on 1st July 2015 — French Republic v European Commission | 39 |
| 2015/C 270/50 | Case T-347/15: Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council | 40 |
| 2015/C 270/51 | Case T-350/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Perry Ellis International Group v OHIM — CG (P) | 41 |
| 2015/C 270/52 | Case T-51/13: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB | 42 |
| 2015/C 270/53 | Case T-134/14: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2015 — Germany v Commission | 42 |
| 2015/C 270/54 | Case T-311/14: Order of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Seca Benelux and Others v Parliament | 42 |
| 2015/C 270/55 | Case T-820/14: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission | 42 |
| 2015/C 270/56 | Case T-821/14: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Pollo Delta di Scabin Giancarlo e C. v Commission | 42 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2015/C 270/57 | Case F-34/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2015 — DP v ACER (Civil service — ACER staff — Member of the contract staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Action for annulment — Admissibility of the action — Plea of illegality of Article 6(2) of ACER’s GIP having regard to Article 85(1) of the CEOS — Action for damages — Notice period — Non-material harm — Damages) | 43 |
| 2015/C 270/58 | Case F-53/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 July 2015 — WR (*1) v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Person treated as a dependent child — Person whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure — Conditions for granting — Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance — Recovery of overpayments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations) | 43 |
| 2015/C 270/59 | Case F-142/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — De Almeida Pereira v Eurojust (Civil service — Eurojust staff — Member of the temporary staff — Vacancy notice — Candidate selection procedure — Examination of applications by a selection board — Admission to the next stage of the selection procedure — Conditions — Scoring of selection criteria — Required points threshold — Rejection of application — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure) | 44 |
| 2015/C 270/60 | Case F-75/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL | 45 |
| 2015/C 270/61 | Case F-29/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL | 45 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 270/02

Joined Cases C-226/13, C-245/13, C-247/13 and C-578/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Stefan Fahnenbrock (C-226/13), Holger Priestoph (C-245/13), Matteo Antonio Priestoph (C-245/13), Pia Antonia Priestoph (C-245/13), Rudolf Reznicek (C-247/13), Hans-Jürgen Kickler (C-578/13), Walther Wöhlk (C-578/13), Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk (C-578/13) v Hellenic Republic (References for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 1(1) — Concept of civil or commercial matters — Liability of the State for acta iure imperii)

2

2015/C 270/03

Case C-554/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — the Netherlands) — Z. Zh. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie, Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie v I. O. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 7(4) — Concept of risk to public policy — Circumstances in which Member States may refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure, or may grant a period shorter than seven days)

3

2015/C 270/04

Case C-649/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Versailles — France) — Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA and Others v Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA and Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA v Alan Robert Bloom and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 2(g), 3(2) and 27 — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Main insolvency proceedings — Secondary insolvency proceedings — Conflict of jurisdiction — Exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction — Determination of the applicable law — Determination of the debtor’s assets falling within the secondary insolvency proceedings — Determination of the location of those assets — Assets situated in a third State)

4

2015/C 270/05

Case C-686/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — X AB v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Holdings for business purposes — Legislation of a Member State exempting capital gains and, by the same token, excluding deduction of capital losses — Transfer by a resident company of shares in a non-resident subsidiary — Capital loss resulting from a currency loss)

5

2015/C 270/06

Case C-1/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Base Company NV, formerly KPN Group Belgium NV, Mobistar NV v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Articles 4, 9, 13 and 32 — Universal service obligations and social obligations — Provision of access at a fixed location and provision of telephone services — Affordability of tariffs — Special tariff options — Financing of the universal service obligations — Additional mandatory services — Mobile communication services and/or internet subscription services)

5

2015/C 270/07

Case C-29/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public health — Directive 2004/23/EC — Directive 2006/17/EC — Directive 2006/86/EC — Exclusion of reproductive cells, foetal tissues and embryonic tissues from the scope of national legislation transposing those directives)

6

2015/C 270/08

Case C-51/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Reimbursement of storage costs — Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 — Article 14(3) — Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 — Article 2(2) — Substitute exports of C sugar — Conditions — Actual exchange of C sugar with the replacement sugar — Replacement possible only with sugar produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State — Validity in the light of Articles 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU)

7

2015/C 270/09

Case C-52/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3(1) — Limitation period — Dies a quo — Repeated irregularities — Interruption of the limitation period — Conditions — Competent authority — Person in question — Act relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity — Time-limit equal to twice the limitation period)

8

2015/C 270/10

Case C-58/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8543 70 — Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8543 70 10 and 8543 70 90 — Reading devices for electronic books with translation or dictionary functions)

9

2015/C 270/11

Case C-98/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft and Others v Magyar Állam (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — National taxes on the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades — National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines outside casinos — Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Directive 98/34/EC — Obligation to notify draft technical regulations to the Commission — Member State liability for damage caused by legislation contrary to EU law)

10

2015/C 270/12

Case C-100/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Association médicale européenne (EMA) v European Commission Appeal — Arbitration clause — Cocoon et Dicoems contracts, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Irregularities — Ineligible expenditure — Termination of contracts

11

2015/C 270/13

Case C-256/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (References for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9, 73, 78, first paragraph, point (a), and 79, first paragraph, point (c) — Taxable amount — Inclusion of the amount of municipal land use taxes paid by the company holding the concession for the gas distribution network in the taxable amount for VAT applicable to supplies of services made by that company to the company responsible for marketing the gas)

12

2015/C 270/14

Case C-272/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 7318 and 8302 — Article specially designed to mount child safety gates

13

2015/C 270/15

Case C-216/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2015 — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

13

2015/C 270/16

Case C-234/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — SC Doris Spedition SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați

14

2015/C 270/17

Case C-235/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

14

2015/C 270/18

Case C-236/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Dinu Antoci v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

15

2015/C 270/19

Case C-239/15 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2015 by RFA International, LP against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-466/12: RFA International, LP v European Commission

15

2015/C 270/20

Case C-258/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias

16

2015/C 270/21

Case C-261/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey

17

2015/C 270/22

Case C-274/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

17

2015/C 270/23

Case C-286/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 June 2015 — SIA Latvijas propāna gāze v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

18

2015/C 270/24

Case C-299/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)

19

General Court

2015/C 270/25

Joined Cases T-425/04 RENV and T-444/04 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — France v Commission (State aid — Financial measures in favour of France Télécom — Shareholder loan offer — Public statements of the French State — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Absence of extension of the formal investigation procedure — Rights of the defence — Test of the prudent private investor — Normal market conditions — Errors of law — Manifest errors of assessment)

21

2015/C 270/26

Case T-404/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Community figurative mark representing a hand) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing a hand — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law)

22

2015/C 270/27

Joined Cases T-186/13, T-190/13 and T-193/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — Netherlands and Others v Commission (State aid — Sale of land — Aid granted to Schouten-de Jong Bouwfonds by a public-private partnership set up by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg — Reduction in the sale price of land and retroactive exemption from payment of the fees payable for its exploitation and quality — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of aid — Private-investor test — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context)

22

2015/C 270/28

Case T-214/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — Typke v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 — Implied refusal to grant access — Refusal to grant access — Request for modification of the form of order sought submitted in the reply — Time-limit — Withdrawal of the implied decision — No need to adjudicate — Concept of a document — Extraction and organisation of information contained in electronic databases)

23

2015/C 270/29

Case T-489/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — La Rioja Alta v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (VIÑA ALBERDI) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VIÑA ALBERDI — Earlier national figurative mark VILLA ALBERTI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No coexistence of the marks — Likelihood of confusion)

24

2015/C 270/30

Case T-657/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — BH Stores v OHIM — Alex Toys (ALEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALEX — National word and figurative marks ALEX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the marks at issue — No likelihood of confusion)

24

2015/C 270/31

Case T-618/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican tortilla) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community mark — Shape of a Mexican tortilla — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

25

2015/C 270/32

Case T-355/11: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

26

2015/C 270/33

Case T-573/14: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission (Actions for annulment — Environment — Criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel — Converted paper products — Excluded or limited substances and mixtures — Concentration limits for residual monomers — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

26

2015/C 270/34

Case T-274/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bioethanol and ethanol — Administrative procedure — Order to submit to an inspection — Refusal to suspend the investigation — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility)

27

2015/C 270/35

Case T-208/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Universiteit Antwerpen v REA

28

2015/C 270/36

Case T-210/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

28

2015/C 270/37

Case T-234/15: Action brought on 9 May 2015 — Systema Teknolotzis kai Pliroforikis v Commission

30

2015/C 270/38

Case T-279/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)

31

2015/C 270/39

Case T-280/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)

32

2015/C 270/40

Case T-281/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)

32

2015/C 270/41

Case T-282/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)

33

2015/C 270/42

Case T-301/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Jochen Schweizer v OHIM (Du bist, was du erlebst.)

34

2015/C 270/43

Case T-305/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Airdata v Commission

34

2015/C 270/44

Case T-307/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission

35

2015/C 270/45

Case T-308/15: Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Reisenthel v OHIM (keep it easy)

36

2015/C 270/46

Case T-309/15 P: Appeal brought on 5 June 2015 by CW against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-124/13 CW v Parliament

37

2015/C 270/47

Case T-312/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)

37

2015/C 270/48

Case T-324/15: Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Bagpax Cargo Systems (BAG PAX)

38

2015/C 270/49

Case T-344/15: Action brought on 1st July 2015 — French Republic v European Commission

39

2015/C 270/50

Case T-347/15: Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

40

2015/C 270/51

Case T-350/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Perry Ellis International Group v OHIM — CG (P)

41

2015/C 270/52

Case T-51/13: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB

42

2015/C 270/53

Case T-134/14: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2015 — Germany v Commission

42

2015/C 270/54

Case T-311/14: Order of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Seca Benelux and Others v Parliament

42

2015/C 270/55

Case T-820/14: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission

42

2015/C 270/56

Case T-821/14: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Pollo Delta di Scabin Giancarlo e C. v Commission

42

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2015/C 270/57

Case F-34/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2015 — DP v ACER (Civil service — ACER staff — Member of the contract staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Action for annulment — Admissibility of the action — Plea of illegality of Article 6(2) of ACER’s GIP having regard to Article 85(1) of the CEOS — Action for damages — Notice period — Non-material harm — Damages)

43

2015/C 270/58

Case F-53/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 July 2015 — WR (*1) v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Person treated as a dependent child — Person whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure — Conditions for granting — Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance — Recovery of overpayments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)

*1

43

2015/C 270/59

Case F-142/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — De Almeida Pereira v Eurojust (Civil service — Eurojust staff — Member of the temporary staff — Vacancy notice — Candidate selection procedure — Examination of applications by a selection board — Admission to the next stage of the selection procedure — Conditions — Scoring of selection criteria — Required points threshold — Rejection of application — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

44

2015/C 270/60

Case F-75/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL

45

2015/C 270/61

Case F-29/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL

45

---

| | |
| --- | --- |

---

| EN | For reasons of protection of personal data, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore, therefore a new authentic version has been published. |
| --- | --- |

EN

For reasons of protection of personal data, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore, therefore a new authentic version has been published.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/1

---

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

(2015/C 270/01)

Last publication

OJ C 262, 10.8.2015

Past publications

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015

OJ C 245, 27.7.2015

OJ C 236, 20.7.2015

OJ C 228, 13.7.2015

OJ C 221, 6.7.2015

OJ C 213, 29.6.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Stefan Fahnenbrock (C-226/13), Holger Priestoph (C-245/13), Matteo Antonio Priestoph (C-245/13), Pia Antonia Priestoph (C-245/13), Rudolf Reznicek (C-247/13), Hans-Jürgen Kickler (C-578/13), Walther Wöhlk (C-578/13), Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk (C-578/13) v Hellenic Republic

(Joined Cases C-226/13, C-245/13, C-247/13 and C-578/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 1(1) - Concept of civil or commercial matters - Liability of the State for ‘acta iure imperii’))

(2015/C 270/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stefan Fahnenbrock (C-226/13), Holger Priestoph (C-245/13), Matteo Antonio Priestoph (C-245/13), Pia Antonia Priestoph (C-245/13), Rudolf Reznicek (C-247/13), Hans-Jürgen Kickler (C-578/13), Walther Wöhlk (C-578/13), Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk (C-578/13)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000. must be interpreted as meaning that legal actions for compensation for disturbance of ownership and property rights, contractual performance and damages, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, brought by private persons who are holders of government bonds against the issuing State, fall within the scope of that regulation in so far as it does not appear that they are manifestly outside the concept of civil or commercial matters.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — the Netherlands) — Z. Zh. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie, Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie v I. O.

(Case C-554/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 7(4) - Concept of ‘risk to public policy’ - Circumstances in which Member States may refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure, or may grant a period shorter than seven days))

(2015/C 270/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Z. Zh., Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie

Defendants: Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie, I. O.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 7(4) of 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 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a third-country national, who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State, is deemed to pose a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision on the sole ground that that national is suspected, or has been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 7(4) of 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 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a third-country national, who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State, is deemed to pose a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision on the sole ground that that national is suspected, or has been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law.

| 2) | Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted to the effect that, in the case of a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State and is suspected, or has been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law, other factors, such as the nature and seriousness of that act, the time which has elapsed since it was committed and the fact that that national was in the process of leaving the territory of that Member State when he was detained by the national authorities, may be relevant in the assessment of whether he poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision. Any matter which relates to the reliability of the suspicion that the third-country national concerned committed the alleged criminal offence, as the case may be, is also relevant to that assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted to the effect that, in the case of a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State and is suspected, or has been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law, other factors, such as the nature and seriousness of that act, the time which has elapsed since it was committed and the fact that that national was in the process of leaving the territory of that Member State when he was detained by the national authorities, may be relevant in the assessment of whether he poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision. Any matter which relates to the reliability of the suspicion that the third-country national concerned committed the alleged criminal offence, as the case may be, is also relevant to that assessment.

| 3) | Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary, in order to make use of the option offered by that provision to refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure when the third-country national poses a risk to public policy, to conduct a fresh examination of the matters which have already been examined in order to establish the existence of that risk. Any legislation or practice of a Member State on this issue must nevertheless ensure that a case-by-case assessment is conducted of whether the refusal to grant such a period is compatible with that person’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary, in order to make use of the option offered by that provision to refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure when the third-country national poses a risk to public policy, to conduct a fresh examination of the matters which have already been examined in order to establish the existence of that risk. Any legislation or practice of a Member State on this issue must nevertheless ensure that a case-by-case assessment is conducted of whether the refusal to grant such a period is compatible with that person’s fundamental rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Versailles — France) — Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA and Others v Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA and Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA v Alan Robert Bloom and Others

(Case C-649/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 2(g), 3(2) and 27 - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Main insolvency proceedings - Secondary insolvency proceedings - Conflict of jurisdiction - Exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction - Determination of the applicable law - Determination of the debtor’s assets falling within the secondary insolvency proceedings - Determination of the location of those assets - Assets situated in a third State))

(2015/C 270/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA and Others, Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA

Defendants: Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA, Alan Robert Bloom, Alan Michael Hudson, Stephen John Harris, Christopher John Wilkinson Hill

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction, concurrently with the courts of the Member State in which the main proceedings have been opened, to rule on the determination of the debtor’s assets falling within the scope of the effects of those secondary proceedings.

The debtor’s assets that fall within the scope of the effects of secondary insolvency proceedings must be determined in accordance with Article 2(g) of Regulation No 1346/2000.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — X AB v Skatteverket

(Case C-686/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Holdings for business purposes - Legislation of a Member State exempting capital gains and, by the same token, excluding deduction of capital losses - Transfer by a resident company of shares in a non-resident subsidiary - Capital loss resulting from a currency loss))

(2015/C 270/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 of the TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the tax legislation of a Member State which, in principle, exempts capital gains on holdings for business purposes from corporation tax and, by the same token, excludes the deduction of capital losses on such holdings, even where those capital losses are due to currency losses.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Base Company NV, formerly KPN Group Belgium NV, Mobistar NV v Ministerraad

(Case C-1/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Articles 4, 9, 13 and 32 - Universal service obligations and social obligations - Provision of access at a fixed location and provision of telephone services - Affordability of tariffs - Special tariff options - Financing of the universal service obligations - Additional mandatory services - Mobile communication services and/or internet subscription services))

(2015/C 270/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Base Company NV, formerly KPN Group Belgium NV, Mobistar NV

Defendant: Ministerraad

Intervener: Belgacom NV

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the special tariffs and the financing mechanism provided for in Articles 9 and 13(1)(b) of that directive respectively apply to internet subscription services requiring a connection to the internet at a fixed location, but not to mobile communication services, including internet subscription services provided by means of those mobile communication services. If those services are made publicly available within the national territory as ‘additional mandatory services’ for the purposes of Article 32 of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, they cannot be financed, under national law, by a mechanism involving specific undertakings.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-29/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public health - Directive 2004/23/EC - Directive 2006/17/EC - Directive 2006/86/EC - Exclusion of reproductive cells, foetal tissues and embryonic tissues from the scope of national legislation transposing those directives))

(2015/C 270/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Gheorghiu and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, under Articles 3(b), 4(2) and 7 of, and Annex III to, Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, and under Article 11 of Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, by excluding reproductive cells and foetal and embryonic tissue from the scope of the provisions of national law transposing those directives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, under Articles 3(b), 4(2) and 7 of, and Annex III to, Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, and under Article 11 of Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, by excluding reproductive cells and foetal and embryonic tissue from the scope of the provisions of national law transposing those directives;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

(Case C-51/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Reimbursement of storage costs - Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 - Article 14(3) - Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 - Article 2(2) - Substitute exports of C sugar - Conditions - Actual exchange of C sugar with the replacement sugar - Replacement possible only with sugar produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State - Validity in the light of Articles 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU))

(2015/C 270/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 14(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 of 13 June 1988, and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3892/88 of 14 December 1988, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where a manufacturer wishes to replace a quantity of C sugar for export by an equivalent quantity of sugar under quota produced by another manufacturer, it is appropriate to have regard to the requirements set out in the latter provision as regards reimbursement of storage costs. Those requirements include, in particular, that the replacement sugar must have been produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State. Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 14(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 of 13 June 1988, and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3892/88 of 14 December 1988, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where a manufacturer wishes to replace a quantity of C sugar for export by an equivalent quantity of sugar under quota produced by another manufacturer, it is appropriate to have regard to the requirements set out in the latter provision as regards reimbursement of storage costs. Those requirements include, in particular, that the replacement sugar must have been produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State. Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of that provision.

| 2. | Article 14(3) of Regulation No 1998/78 and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2670/81 must be interpreted as not requiring, for the proper substitution of sugar for export, that the initial quantity of C sugar and the quantity of replacement sugar be physically substituted by the manufacturer. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14(3) of Regulation No 1998/78 and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2670/81 must be interpreted as not requiring, for the proper substitution of sugar for export, that the initial quantity of C sugar and the quantity of replacement sugar be physically substituted by the manufacturer.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

(Case C-52/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3(1) - Limitation period - Dies a quo - Repeated irregularities - Interruption of the limitation period - Conditions - Competent authority - Person in question - Act relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity - Time-limit equal to twice the limitation period))

(2015/C 270/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘competent authority’, within the meaning of that provision, is to be understood as designating the authority which has responsibility, under national law, for adopting acts relating to the investigation or legal proceedings in question, which authority may be different from that which is responsible for awarding or recovering sums wrongfully received to the detriment of the European Union’s financial interests. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘competent authority’, within the meaning of that provision, is to be understood as designating the authority which has responsibility, under national law, for adopting acts relating to the investigation or legal proceedings in question, which authority may be different from that which is responsible for awarding or recovering sums wrongfully received to the detriment of the European Union’s financial interests.

| 2. | The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning an irregularity have been notified to the ‘person in question’, within the meaning of that provision, where a set of facts lead to the conclusion that the person in question has effectively been made aware of those acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings. In the case of a legal person, that requirement is satisfied if the act in question has actually been brought to the attention of a person whose conduct may be ascribed, under national law, to that legal person, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning an irregularity have been notified to the ‘person in question’, within the meaning of that provision, where a set of facts lead to the conclusion that the person in question has effectively been made aware of those acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings. In the case of a legal person, that requirement is satisfied if the act in question has actually been brought to the attention of a person whose conduct may be ascribed, under national law, to that legal person, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 3. | The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that an act must set out with sufficient precision the transactions to which the suspicions of irregularities relate in order to constitute an ‘act relating to investigation or legal proceedings’, within the meaning of that provision. That requirement for precision does not, however, require the act to state the possibility that a penalty or particular administrative measure may be imposed. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the report at issue in the main proceedings satisfies that requirement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that an act must set out with sufficient precision the transactions to which the suspicions of irregularities relate in order to constitute an ‘act relating to investigation or legal proceedings’, within the meaning of that provision. That requirement for precision does not, however, require the act to state the possibility that a penalty or particular administrative measure may be imposed. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the report at issue in the main proceedings satisfies that requirement.

| 4. | The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the fact that irregularities must be closely linked in time in order to be regarded as a ‘repeated irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, it is required only that the period between each irregularity be shorter than the limitation period of four years provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1). Irregularities such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the calculation of the quantities of sugar stored by the manufacturer, committed in different marketing years, leading to incorrect declarations of those quantities by that manufacturer and, accordingly, the wrongful payment of sums as reimbursements of storage costs, constitute, in principle, a ‘repeated irregularity’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the fact that irregularities must be closely linked in time in order to be regarded as a ‘repeated irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, it is required only that the period between each irregularity be shorter than the limitation period of four years provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1). Irregularities such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the calculation of the quantities of sugar stored by the manufacturer, committed in different marketing years, leading to incorrect declarations of those quantities by that manufacturer and, accordingly, the wrongful payment of sums as reimbursements of storage costs, constitute, in principle, a ‘repeated irregularity’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 5. | The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that classification of a series of irregularities as a ‘continuous or repeated irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, is not excluded where the competent authorities have not made regular and in-depth checks on the person in question. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that classification of a series of irregularities as a ‘continuous or repeated irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, is not excluded where the competent authorities have not made regular and in-depth checks on the person in question.

| 6. | The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period laid down in that subparagraph begins to run, in the case of a continuous or repeated irregularity, from the day on which that irregularity ceased, irrespective of the date on which the national administration became aware of that irregularity. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period laid down in that subparagraph begins to run, in the case of a continuous or repeated irregularity, from the day on which that irregularity ceased, irrespective of the date on which the national administration became aware of that irregularity.

| 7. | Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings adopted by the competent authority and notified to the person in question, in accordance with the third subparagraph of that provision, do not have the effect of interrupting the limitation period laid down in the fourth subparagraph thereof. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings adopted by the competent authority and notified to the person in question, in accordance with the third subparagraph of that provision, do not have the effect of interrupting the limitation period laid down in the fourth subparagraph thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl

(Case C-58/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 8543 70 - Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8543 70 10 and 8543 70 90 - Reading devices for electronic books with translation or dictionary functions))

(2015/C 270/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Defendant: Amazon EU Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a reading device for electronic books which has a translation or dictionary function must, where that function is not its principal function, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain, be classified under subheading 8543 70 90 and not under subheading 8543 70 10.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft and Others v Magyar Állam

(Case C-98/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Games of chance - National taxes on the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades - National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines outside casinos - Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations - Directive 98/34/EC - Obligation to notify draft technical regulations to the Commission - Member State liability for damage caused by legislation contrary to EU law))

(2015/C 270/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft, Lixus Szerencsejáték Szervező kft, Lixus Projekt Szerencsejáték Szervező kft, Lixus Invest Szerencsejáték Szervező kft, Megapolis Terminal Szolgáltató kft

Defendant: Magyar Állam

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing for a transitional period, introduces a five-fold increase in the flat-rate tax to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, introduces a proportional tax on that activity, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU provided that it is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom to provide the services of operating slot machines in amusement arcades, this being a matter which it is for the national court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

1)

National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing for a transitional period, introduces a five-fold increase in the flat-rate tax to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, introduces a proportional tax on that activity, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU provided that it is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom to provide the services of operating slot machines in amusement arcades, this being a matter which it is for the national court to determine.

| 2) | National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing for either a transitional period or compensation for operators of amusement arcades, prohibits the operation of slot machines outside casinos constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2)

National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing for either a transitional period or compensation for operators of amusement arcades, prohibits the operation of slot machines outside casinos constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU.

| 3) | Restrictions on the freedom to provide services which may result from national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings can only be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest if the national court finds, after an overall assessment of the circumstances surrounding the adoption and implementation of that legislation:






  — | that it actually pursues, primarily, objectives relating to the protection of consumers against gambling addiction and the prevention of criminal and fraudulent activities linked to gambling; the mere fact that a restriction on gambling activities incidentally benefits, through an increase in tax revenue, the budget of the Member State concerned, does not prevent that restriction from being considered actually to be pursuing, primarily, those objectives; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3)

Restrictions on the freedom to provide services which may result from national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings can only be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest if the national court finds, after an overall assessment of the circumstances surrounding the adoption and implementation of that legislation:

—

that it actually pursues, primarily, objectives relating to the protection of consumers against gambling addiction and the prevention of criminal and fraudulent activities linked to gambling; the mere fact that a restriction on gambling activities incidentally benefits, through an increase in tax revenue, the budget of the Member State concerned, does not prevent that restriction from being considered actually to be pursuing, primarily, those objectives;

| — | that it pursues those goals consistently and systematically, and |
| --- | --- |

—

that it pursues those goals consistently and systematically, and

| — | that it meets the requirements arising from general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to property. |
| --- | --- |

—

that it meets the requirements arising from general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to property.

| 4) | Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the provisions of national legislation that introduce a five-fold increase in the flat-rate tax to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, introduce a proportional tax on that activity, do not constitute ‘technical rules’ within the meaning of that provision, and that |
| --- | --- | --- |

4)

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the provisions of national legislation that introduce a five-fold increase in the flat-rate tax to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, introduce a proportional tax on that activity, do not constitute ‘technical rules’ within the meaning of that provision, and that

| — | the provisions of national legislation that prohibit the operation of slot machines outside casinos constitute ‘technical rules’ within the meaning of that provision, the drafts of which must be communicated in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

the provisions of national legislation that prohibit the operation of slot machines outside casinos constitute ‘technical rules’ within the meaning of that provision, the drafts of which must be communicated in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of that directive.

| 5) | Article 56 TFEU is intended to confer rights on individuals, in such a way that its infringement by a Member State, including as a result of its legislative activity, gives rise to a right of individuals to obtain from that Member State compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that infringement, provided that that infringement is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between that infringement and the damage sustained, this being a matter which it is for the national court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

5)

Article 56 TFEU is intended to confer rights on individuals, in such a way that its infringement by a Member State, including as a result of its legislative activity, gives rise to a right of individuals to obtain from that Member State compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that infringement, provided that that infringement is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between that infringement and the damage sustained, this being a matter which it is for the national court to determine.

| 6) | Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 2006/96, are not intended to confer rights on individuals, in such a way that their infringement by a Member State gives rise to a right of individuals to obtain from that Member State compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that infringement on the basis of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

6)

Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 2006/96, are not intended to confer rights on individuals, in such a way that their infringement by a Member State gives rise to a right of individuals to obtain from that Member State compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that infringement on the basis of EU law.

| 7) | The fact that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings concerns an area falling within the competence of the Member States does not affect the answers to the questions raised by the referring court. |
| --- | --- |

7)

The fact that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings concerns an area falling within the competence of the Member States does not affect the answers to the questions raised by the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Association médicale européenne (EMA) v European Commission

(Case C-100/14 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Cocoon et Dicoems contracts, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) - Irregularities - Ineligible expenditure - Termination of contracts)

(2015/C 270/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Association médicale européenne (EMA) (represented by: A. Franchi, L. Picciano and G. Gangemi, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, acting as Agents, and D. Gullo, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Association médicale européenne (EMA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Association médicale européenne (EMA) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-256/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9, 73, 78, first paragraph, point (a), and 79, first paragraph, point (c) - Taxable amount - Inclusion of the amount of municipal land use taxes paid by the company holding the concession for the gas distribution network in the taxable amount for VAT applicable to supplies of services made by that company to the company responsible for marketing the gas))

(2015/C 270/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9(1) and 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of taxes, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which is paid to municipalities by the company holding the gas distribution concession in return for the use of publicly-owned property belonging to those municipalities and which is then passed on by that company to another company responsible for marketing the gas, then by that company on to the final consumers, must be included in the taxable amount for value added tax applicable to the supply of services effected by the first company to the second company under Article 73 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

(Case C-272/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 7318 and 8302 - Article specially designed to mount child safety gates)

(2015/C 270/14)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended, successively, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that an article, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a moveable child safety gate to be mounted to a wall or a door frame, must be classified under heading 7318 of the Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2015 — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

(Case C-216/15)

(2015/C 270/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Defendant: Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Question referred

Does Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (1) apply to the assignment of a member of an association to another undertaking for the performance of work under that undertaking’s functional and organisational instructions if, upon joining the association, the member undertook to make his full working capacity available also to third parties, for which he receives a monthly remuneration from the association, the calculation of which is determined by the usual criteria for the particular activity, and the association receives, in return for the assignment, compensation for the personnel costs of the association member and a flat-rate administrative charge?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — SC Doris Spedition SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați

(Case C-234/15)

(2015/C 270/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Doris Spedition SRL

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Constanța — Serviciul fiscal orăşenesc Hârşova

Third party acting as guarantor: Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu Bucureşti

Question referred

Does Article 110 TFEU preclude the creation, under Article 4(a) of Law No 9/2012, of an obligation to pay a tax on pollutant emissions from second-hand motor vehicles originating in the European Union when the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle is registered with the competent authorities under Romanian law by its first owner in Romania and a registration certificate and registration number are issued, a tax which also applies in the event of transfers of ownership of domestic motor vehicles with the exception of cases in which that tax, or a similar tax, has already been paid?

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

(Case C-235/15)

(2015/C 270/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maria Bosneaga

Respondent: Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Question referred

Does Article 110 TFEU preclude the creation, under Article 4(d) of Decree-Law No 9/2013, of an obligation to pay an environmental stamp duty in respect of second-hand motor vehicles originating in the European Union when ownership of a second-hand motor vehicle is registered if a judicial authority has ordered that that motor vehicle is to be registered without payment of the special tax on automobiles and motor vehicles, the pollution tax for motor vehicles or the tax on pollutant emissions from motor vehicles, or has ordered that those taxes are to be refunded?

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Dinu Antoci v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

(Case C-236/15)

(2015/C 270/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dinu Antoci

Respondent: Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Question referred

Does Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the creation, under Article 4(a) of Decree-Law No 9/2013, of an obligation to pay an environmental stamp duty in respect of second-hand motor vehicles originating in the European Union when the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle is registered with the competent authorities under Romanian law by its first owner in Romania and a registration certificate and registration number are issued?

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/15

---

Appeal brought on 22 May 2015 by RFA International, LP against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-466/12: RFA International, LP v European Commission

(Case C-239/15 P)

(2015/C 270/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: RFA International, LP (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, Prof. D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor, E. Borovikov, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court;

| — | Give a final judgment on the pleas of the appellant’s action for annulment where the stage of the procedure so permits, and partially annul the decisions contested at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Give a final judgment on the pleas of the appellant’s action for annulment where the stage of the procedure so permits, and partially annul the decisions contested at first instance;

| — | In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the General Court infringed EU law in its appraisal of the appellant’s pleas in law in its judgment as follows:

| — | The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the Commission’s position on the relevance of a single economic entity (an integrated sales department of the exporting producer, located outside of the country of export) for the purposes of applying Article 2(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in law by abstaining from ruling on the arguments of the Appellant based on the case law in Interpipe and Nikopolsky, thereby affecting the appellant’s right to judicial review, |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the Commission’s position on the relevance of a single economic entity (an integrated sales department of the exporting producer, located outside of the country of export) for the purposes of applying Article 2(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in law by abstaining from ruling on the arguments of the Appellant based on the case law in Interpipe and Nikopolsky, thereby affecting the appellant’s right to judicial review,

| — | The General Court erred in law, including in its assessment of the case law it examined, when it placed the burden of proof concerning the extent of the amount of adjustment under Article 2(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation on the interested party who claims that the adjustment is excessive on account of a demonstrated existence of a single economic entity; |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law, including in its assessment of the case law it examined, when it placed the burden of proof concerning the extent of the amount of adjustment under Article 2(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation on the interested party who claims that the adjustment is excessive on account of a demonstrated existence of a single economic entity;

| — | The General Court erred in law by ruling that the existence of a single economic entity was not an issue in the contested decisions and before the General Court, and by basing its ruling on the premise that the Commission’s rejection of the existence of a single economic entity was not contained in the text of the contested decisions; the General Court failed to assess that such a rejection by the Commission was made in the parallel interim review investigation conducted pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, relating to the same imports and covering the same investigation period. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law by ruling that the existence of a single economic entity was not an issue in the contested decisions and before the General Court, and by basing its ruling on the premise that the Commission’s rejection of the existence of a single economic entity was not contained in the text of the contested decisions; the General Court failed to assess that such a rejection by the Commission was made in the parallel interim review investigation conducted pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, relating to the same imports and covering the same investigation period.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version), OJ L 343, p. 51

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias

(Case C-258/15)

(2015/C 270/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gorka Salaberria Sorondo

Defendant: Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias

Question referred

Is the setting of a maximum age of 35 years as a condition for participation in the selection process for recruitment to the post of officer of the police force of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country (Policía Autónoma Vasca) compatible with the interpretation of Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000?

---

(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.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey

(Case C-261/15)

(2015/C 270/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Ieper

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV

Defendant: Gregory Demey

Question referred

Does Article 6(2), in fine, of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations preclude the Belgian national penalty provisions, ..., under which a train passenger without a ticket — and in the absence of regularisation within the periods laid down in the relevant regulations — commits a criminal offence, which excludes any contractual relationship between the transport company and the train passenger, with the consequence that the benefit of the legal protection provisions under European and Belgian national law which are based on that (exclusive) contractual relationship with that consumer, ..., is also denied to the train passenger?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/17

---

Action brought on 8 June 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-274/15)

(2015/C 270/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

| — | declare that in laying down the VAT regime applicable to independent groups of persons, as defined in Article 44(1)(y) of the Law of 12 February 1979 on VAT, in Articles 1 to 4 of the Grand-Ducal Order of 21 January 2004 on the exemption from VAT of supplies of services to their members by independent groups of persons, in Administrative Circular No 707 of 29 January 2004 in so far as it comments on Articles 1 to 4 of the Grand-Ducal Order, and in the Note of 18 December 2008 by the working group within the Comité d'Observation des Marchés (Cobma; the Financial Market Observation Committee) with agreement from l'Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (the Registration and Land Authority), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive (1), and, specifically, under Article 2(1)(c), Article 132(1)(f), the second subparagraph of Article 1(2), Article 168(a), Article 178(a), Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that in laying down the VAT regime applicable to independent groups of persons, as defined in Article 44(1)(y) of the Law of 12 February 1979 on VAT, in Articles 1 to 4 of the Grand-Ducal Order of 21 January 2004 on the exemption from VAT of supplies of services to their members by independent groups of persons, in Administrative Circular No 707 of 29 January 2004 in so far as it comments on Articles 1 to 4 of the Grand-Ducal Order, and in the Note of 18 December 2008 by the working group within the Comité d'Observation des Marchés (Cobma; the Financial Market Observation Committee) with agreement from l'Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (the Registration and Land Authority), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive (1), and, specifically, under Article 2(1)(c), Article 132(1)(f), the second subparagraph of Article 1(2), Article 168(a), Article 178(a), Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of that directive;

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive stipulates that Member States are to exempt from VAT ‘the supply of services by independent groups of persons, who are carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, for the purpose of rendering their members the services directly necessary for the exercise of that activity, where those groups merely claim from their members exact reimbursement of their share of the joint expenses, provided that such exemption is not likely to cause distortion of competition’.

However, according to the Commission, the legislation applicable in Luxembourg does not restrict the VAT exemption only to services provided by an independent group of persons and directly necessary for activities undertaken by its members which are not liable to VAT or are exempt.

Further, the Commission submits that under Luxembourg law, the members of an independent group of persons whose turnover partly derives from taxable activities may deduct the VAT invoiced to the independent group of persons for its purchases of goods or services from a third party from the VAT which they themselves are liable to pay; whereas under Article 168 of the VAT Directive, the right to deduct input VAT is granted only to a taxable person who acquires the goods or services subject to VAT and uses them for the direct purposes of his taxed transactions.

Lastly, the Commission maintains that Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of the VAT Directive preclude the national legislation in so far as it provides that, where a member of an independent group of persons acquires goods and services from a third party in his own name, but on behalf of the group, the transaction by which that member assigns such expenditure to the group falls outside the scope of VAT.

---

(1)  Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 June 2015 — SIA ‘Latvijas propāna gāze’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-286/15)

(2015/C 270/23)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Latvijas propāna gāze’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1) | Must the general interpretative rules 2(b) and 3(b), in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 (1) of 19 September 2008, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 (2) of 30 September 2009, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, be interpreted as meaning that if the essential character of the goods (liquefied petroleum gas) is determined by all the components of the gas mixture together and no component of that mixture may be identified separately as the factor giving that gas its essential character, it must be presumed that the factor which gives the goods their essential character within the meaning of the general interpretative rule 3(b) is that substance which is present in the greatest proportion in the mixture? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must the general interpretative rules 2(b) and 3(b), in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 (1) of 19 September 2008, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 (2) of 30 September 2009, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, be interpreted as meaning that if the essential character of the goods (liquefied petroleum gas) is determined by all the components of the gas mixture together and no component of that mixture may be identified separately as the factor giving that gas its essential character, it must be presumed that the factor which gives the goods their essential character within the meaning of the general interpretative rule 3(b) is that substance which is present in the greatest proportion in the mixture?

| 2) | Does it follow from Article 218(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (3) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code that the declarant of the goods (liquefied petroleum gas) is under an obligation to indicate precisely the percentage amount of the substances present in the greatest quantity in the mixture? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Does it follow from Article 218(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (3) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code that the declarant of the goods (liquefied petroleum gas) is under an obligation to indicate precisely the percentage amount of the substances present in the greatest quantity in the mixture?

| 3) | If the declarant of the goods has failed to indicate precisely the percentage amount of the substances present in the greatest quantity in the mixture, is it the EU Combined Nomenclature code 2711 19 00, applied by the declarant of the goods in the present case, or code 2711 12 97, applied by the Valsts ieņēmumu dienests, that must be applied to a gas of which 0,32 % is the sum of methane, ethane and ethylene, 58,32 % the sum of propane and propylene and no more than 39,99 % the sum of butane and butylene? |
| --- | --- |

3)

If the declarant of the goods has failed to indicate precisely the percentage amount of the substances present in the greatest quantity in the mixture, is it the EU Combined Nomenclature code 2711 19 00, applied by the declarant of the goods in the present case, or code 2711 12 97, applied by the Valsts ieņēmumu dienests, that must be applied to a gas of which 0,32 % is the sum of methane, ethane and ethylene, 58,32 % the sum of propane and propylene and no more than 39,99 % the sum of butane and butylene?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2009 L 287, p. 1).

(3)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)

(Case C-299/15)

(2015/C 270/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL

Defendants: Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)

Questions referred

| 1) | Must Article 101 TFEU (or Article 102 TFEU) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes that provision of EC law in so far as the UEFA rule gives rise to a restriction of competition (or the abuse of a dominant position), in particular a restriction ‘by its object’ in that it limits the right to invest, which is either ‘by its object’ anticompetitive or is not necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions — or, in the alternative, which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must Article 101 TFEU (or Article 102 TFEU) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes that provision of EC law in so far as the UEFA rule gives rise to a restriction of competition (or the abuse of a dominant position), in particular a restriction ‘by its object’ in that it limits the right to invest, which is either ‘by its object’ anticompetitive or is not necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions — or, in the alternative, which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives?

| 2) | Must Articles 63, 56 and 45 TFEU (as well as Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes those provisions of EC law in so far as that UEFA rule gives rise to an obstacle to freedom of movement (capital, services, persons) which is not necessary for the attainment of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions (and which is not justified by ‘overriding grounds of public interest’) or, alternatively, an obstacle which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Must Articles 63, 56 and 45 TFEU (as well as Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes those provisions of EC law in so far as that UEFA rule gives rise to an obstacle to freedom of movement (capital, services, persons) which is not necessary for the attainment of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions (and which is not justified by ‘overriding grounds of public interest’) or, alternatively, an obstacle which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives?

| 3) | Must the above provisions of EC law (or some of them) be interpreted as meaning that those provisions (or some of them) are infringed by Articles 65 and 66 of the UEFA regulations entitled ‘UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations’ in so far as the UEFA rule — even if a restriction or obstacle to which it gives rise is logically connected to the protection of the sporting integrity of UEFA interclub competitions — is disproportionate and/or discriminatory in so far as it gives preference to the payment of certain creditors and, as a corollary, treats the payment of non-protected creditors, in particular football agents, less favourably? |
| --- | --- |

3)

Must the above provisions of EC law (or some of them) be interpreted as meaning that those provisions (or some of them) are infringed by Articles 65 and 66 of the UEFA regulations entitled ‘UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations’ in so far as the UEFA rule — even if a restriction or obstacle to which it gives rise is logically connected to the protection of the sporting integrity of UEFA interclub competitions — is disproportionate and/or discriminatory in so far as it gives preference to the payment of certain creditors and, as a corollary, treats the payment of non-protected creditors, in particular football agents, less favourably?

---

General Court

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — France v Commission

(Joined Cases T-425/04 RENV and T-444/04 RENV) (1)

((State aid - Financial measures in favour of France Télécom - Shareholder loan offer - Public statements of the French State - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Absence of extension of the formal investigation procedure - Rights of the defence - Test of the prudent private investor - Normal market conditions - Errors of law - Manifest errors of assessment))

(2015/C 270/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) (T-425/04 RENV); and Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, lawyers) (case T-444/04 RENV)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant, the French Republic: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by U. Soltész, lawyer)

Re:

Actions for the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom (OJ 2006 L 257, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom;

| 2. | Declares that it is no longer necessary to adjudicate on the claims for annulment of Article 2 of Decision 2006/621; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that it is no longer necessary to adjudicate on the claims for annulment of Article 2 of Decision 2006/621;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as eight-tenths of the costs incurred by the French Republic and Orange, formerly France Télécom; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as eight-tenths of the costs incurred by the French Republic and Orange, formerly France Télécom;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic and Orange, formerly France Télécom, each to bear two-tenths of their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic and Orange, formerly France Télécom, each to bear two-tenths of their own costs;

| 5. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Community figurative mark representing a hand)

(Case T-404/10 RENV) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing a hand - Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Existence of earlier copyright protected by national law - Burden of proof - Application by OHIM of national law))

(2015/C 270/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gambling Commission, formerly National Lottery Commission (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Cardas, lawyer, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mediatek Italia Srl (Naples, Italy), Giuseppe De Gregorio (Naples)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mediatek Italia Srl and Giuseppe De Gregorio and, on the other, the National Lottery Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009-1); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009-1);

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

2)

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — Netherlands and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-186/13, T-190/13 and T-193/13) (1)

((State aid - Sale of land - Aid granted to Schouten-de Jong Bouwfonds by a public-private partnership set up by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg - Reduction in the sale price of land and retroactive exemption from payment of the fees payable for its exploitation and quality - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Concept of aid - Private-investor test - Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context))

(2015/C 270/27)

Language of the cases: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and J. Langer, acting as Agents) (Case T-186/13); Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg (Netherlands) (represented by: A. de Groot and J.-K. Sluijs, lawyers) (Case T-190/13); Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV (Hoevelaken, Netherlands) and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV (Leidschendam, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and X. Reintjes, lawyers) (Case T-193/13)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg, Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg, Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — Typke v Commission

(Case T-214/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 - Implied refusal to grant access - Refusal to grant access - Request for modification of the form of order sought submitted in the reply - Time-limit - Withdrawal of the implied decision - No need to adjudicate - Concept of a document - Extraction and organisation of information contained in electronic databases))

(2015/C 270/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rainer Typke (Hasbergen, Germany) (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretariat-General of the Commission of 5 February 2013 refusing the applicant’s initial application for access to documents relating to the preselection tests for the open competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 (AD 5-AD 7) (Gestdem 2012/3258) and, secondly, of the implied decision of the Secretariat-General of the Commission, deemed to have been taken on 13 March 2013, refusing the applicant’s second application for access to documents relating to those tests (Gestdem 2013/0068).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the implied decision refusing access in procedure Gestdem 2013/0068; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the implied decision refusing access in procedure Gestdem 2013/0068;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mr Rainer Typke to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Rainer Typke to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — La Rioja Alta v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (VIÑA ALBERDI)

(Case T-489/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark VIÑA ALBERDI - Earlier national figurative mark VILLA ALBERTI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No coexistence of the marks - Likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 270/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: La Rioja Alta, SA (Haro, Spain) (represented by: F. Pérez Álvarez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2013 (Case R 1190/2011-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and La Rioja Alta, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders La Rioja Alta, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders La Rioja Alta, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — BH Stores v OHIM — Alex Toys (ALEX)

(Case T-657/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ALEX - National word and figurative marks ALEX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - No similarity between the goods and services covered by the marks at issue - No likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 270/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BH Stores BV (Curaçao autonomous entity of the Netherlands) (represented by: T. Dolde, lawyer, and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening between the General Court: Alex Toys LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2013 (Case R 1950/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between BH Stores BV and Alex Toys LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BH Stores BV to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Alex Toys LLC for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BH Stores BV to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Alex Toys LLC for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican tortilla)

(Case T-618/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for three-dimensional Community mark - Shape of a Mexican tortilla - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 270/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, subsequently by J. Garrido Otaola, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2014 (Case R 2449/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a Mexican tortilla.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/26

---

Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)

(Case T-355/11) (1)

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

(2015/C 270/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jorge Segovia Bonet (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by M. López Camba and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, subsequently by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva, G. Locurto and M. Lucchini, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2011 (Case R 749/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Jorge Segovia Bonet and IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/26

---

Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission

(Case T-573/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Environment - Criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel - Converted paper products - Excluded or limited substances and mixtures - Concentration limits for residual monomers - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 270/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium); and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented by: R. Cana and A. Patsa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2014/256/EU of 2 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for converted paper products (OJ 2014 L 135, p. 24).

Operative part of the order

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

1)

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2) | Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/27

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-274/15 R)

((Interim measures - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in bioethanol and ethanol - Administrative procedure - Order to submit to an inspection - Refusal to suspend the investigation - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 270/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, V. Bottka and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures seeking, first, suspension of the implementation of decision C (2015) 1769 final of the Commission of 12 March 2015 addressed to Alcogroup and all the undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it including Alcodis, relating to proceedings under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40244 — AQUAVIT) and its decision of 8 May 2015 addressed to Alcogroup in investigations AT.A0244 — Bioethanol — and AT.A0054 — Oil and Biofuel Markets and, second, an order that the Commission suspend all investigations in proceedings AT. A0054 and AT.A0244.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/28

---

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Universiteit Antwerpen v REA

(Case T-208/15)

(2015/C 270/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Universiteit Antwerpen (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | decide that the Grant agreement No 238214 ‘C7’ (Cerebellar-Cortical Control: Cells, Circuits, Computation, and Clinic) and the Grant agreement No 238686 ‘CEREBNET’ (Timing and plasticity in the olivo-cerebellar system), concluded in the seventh framework programme (FP7-PEOPLE-ITN-2008) for support for training and career development of researchers and networks for initial training, cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the beneficiaries to provide training to early-stage researchers exclusively on their own premises and, as a consequence, confirm that REA cannot reject as ineligible part of the costs related to the training of early-stage researchers on the basis of this interpretation; |
| --- | --- |

—

decide that the Grant agreement No 238214 ‘C7’ (Cerebellar-Cortical Control: Cells, Circuits, Computation, and Clinic) and the Grant agreement No 238686 ‘CEREBNET’ (Timing and plasticity in the olivo-cerebellar system), concluded in the seventh framework programme (FP7-PEOPLE-ITN-2008) for support for training and career development of researchers and networks for initial training, cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the beneficiaries to provide training to early-stage researchers exclusively on their own premises and, as a consequence, confirm that REA cannot reject as ineligible part of the costs related to the training of early-stage researchers on the basis of this interpretation;

| — | condemn REA to the payment of the costs related to the training of the early-stage researchers as reported by the applicant in the context of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements, increased with the interests from the date that the payments are due; and |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn REA to the payment of the costs related to the training of the early-stage researchers as reported by the applicant in the context of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements, increased with the interests from the date that the payments are due; and

| — | order REA to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order REA to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that REA bases its position on an erroneous interpretation of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements. This first plea in law is divided in three limbs: Restricting the possibility of training to the premises of the beneficiary would be contrary to the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, the People Programme, the 2008 PWP and the European Charter for researchers (First Limb); it can be inferred from the provisions of the Grant agreements and the Guide for applicants that the obligation for the beneficiaries to provide training can also be fulfilled outside their premises (Second Limb); and no provision(s) of the Grant agreements or any other instrument applicable state(s) that the training should be provided exclusively on the premises of the beneficiary (Third Limb). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that REA bases its position on an erroneous interpretation of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements. This first plea in law is divided in three limbs: Restricting the possibility of training to the premises of the beneficiary would be contrary to the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, the People Programme, the 2008 PWP and the European Charter for researchers (First Limb); it can be inferred from the provisions of the Grant agreements and the Guide for applicants that the obligation for the beneficiaries to provide training can also be fulfilled outside their premises (Second Limb); and no provision(s) of the Grant agreements or any other instrument applicable state(s) that the training should be provided exclusively on the premises of the beneficiary (Third Limb).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that REA’s interpretation violates the principle of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that REA’s interpretation violates the principle of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/28

---

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

(Case T-210/15)

(2015/C 270/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and O. Corzilius, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 February 2015 on the applicant’s application for access to documents in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2014/4555; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 February 2015 on the applicant’s application for access to documents in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2014/4555;

| — | 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

The access to documents requested concerns abuse proceedings under Article 102 TFEU.

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

| 1. | First plea in law: Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and the duty to state reasons






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission erred in not examining the specific exception for the protection of decision-making processes and the restrictive conditions thereof although that provision expressly governs the present case of a requested disclosure of documents after conclusion of the proceedings. In addition, the Commission has not justified that action. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and the duty to state reasons

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission erred in not examining the specific exception for the protection of decision-making processes and the restrictive conditions thereof although that provision expressly governs the present case of a requested disclosure of documents after conclusion of the proceedings. In addition, the Commission has not justified that action.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of intervention of the exceptions






  — | The applicant submits that, by relying on a general presumption, the Commission erred in affirming the applicability of the exceptions for the protection of commercial interests of third parties and the purpose of investigations to documents of concluded proceedings. The Commission hereby infringed the obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents concerning the application for access. In addition, the Commission did not prove any specific impairment of the protected interests. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of intervention of the exceptions

—

The applicant submits that, by relying on a general presumption, the Commission erred in affirming the applicability of the exceptions for the protection of commercial interests of third parties and the purpose of investigations to documents of concluded proceedings. The Commission hereby infringed the obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents concerning the application for access. In addition, the Commission did not prove any specific impairment of the protected interests.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Infringement of the last subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 owing to the existence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of information






  — | Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. That overriding public interest concerns the promotion of good administrative practice, the execution of compliance measures, the examination of possible claims for damages and the judicial review of administrative actions. The applicant takes the view that, without the access to documents, there is no possibility for it to review the Commission’s administrative action concerning it. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Infringement of the last subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 owing to the existence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of information

—

Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. That overriding public interest concerns the promotion of good administrative practice, the execution of compliance measures, the examination of possible claims for damages and the judicial review of administrative actions. The applicant takes the view that, without the access to documents, there is no possibility for it to review the Commission’s administrative action concerning it.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of consultation of third parties






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission erred in law in not consulting third parties on the release of the documents concerning it. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of consultation of third parties

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission erred in law in not consulting third parties on the release of the documents concerning it.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of a grant of partial access to documents






  — | According to this plea in law, the Commission erred in refusing partial access to documents. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of a grant of partial access to documents

—

According to this plea in law, the Commission erred in refusing partial access to documents.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: Infringement of primary law due to breach of the fundamental right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the obligation of transparency under Article 15(3) TFEU






  — | The applicant submits that the right of access to the documents requested (in the alternative) must be derived directly from primary law and must be granted. The complete denial of access constitutes a disproportionate interference with the fundamental right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The interpretation of Regulation No 1049/2001 must be made in the light of the importance of that fundamental right and the obligation of transparency laid down in Article 15(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: Infringement of primary law due to breach of the fundamental right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the obligation of transparency under Article 15(3) TFEU

—

The applicant submits that the right of access to the documents requested (in the alternative) must be derived directly from primary law and must be granted. The complete denial of access constitutes a disproportionate interference with the fundamental right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The interpretation of Regulation No 1049/2001 must be made in the light of the importance of that fundamental right and the obligation of transparency laid down in Article 15(3) TFEU.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of observance of the time-limit regime






  — | Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that, by not handling the confirmatory application within the time-limits specified and by repeatedly extending the time-limits for no reason, the Commission infringed the mandatory time-limit regime. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of observance of the time-limit regime

—

Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that, by not handling the confirmatory application within the time-limits specified and by repeatedly extending the time-limits for no reason, the Commission infringed the mandatory time-limit regime.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/30

---

Action brought on 9 May 2015 — Systema Teknolotzis kai Pliroforikis v Commission

(Case T-234/15)

(2015/C 270/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Systema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Georgilas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold this action; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold this action;

| — | declare null and void the Commission Decision of 10 March 2015 [SG-Registry (2015) D/3003/11.3.2015] for the recovery from the applicant of the entire amount of seven hundred and sixteen thousand, three hundred and thirty four euros and five cents (EUR 716 334,05), with interest;·and
  order the defendant to pay the applicants legal costs and general legal expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare null and void the Commission Decision of 10 March 2015 [SG-Registry (2015) D/3003/11.3.2015] for the recovery from the applicant of the entire amount of seven hundred and sixteen thousand, three hundred and thirty four euros and five cents (EUR 716 334,05), with interest;·and

order the defendant to pay the applicants legal costs and general legal expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on three grounds for annulment.

| 1. | The first ground is a claim of an infringement of Article 89 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) and of the obligation to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU). The applicant maintains that the contested decision failed to state adequate, specific and detailed reasons for the rejection of the applicant’s request for the reimbursement of the sum owed within the framework of a seven-year arrangement, with regard to the PlayMancer and MOBISERV projects. Correspondingly, with respect to the PowerUp project, the decision tacitly rejects the request for repayment of the sum owed in three years. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first ground is a claim of an infringement of Article 89 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) and of the obligation to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU). The applicant maintains that the contested decision failed to state adequate, specific and detailed reasons for the rejection of the applicant’s request for the reimbursement of the sum owed within the framework of a seven-year arrangement, with regard to the PlayMancer and MOBISERV projects. Correspondingly, with respect to the PowerUp project, the decision tacitly rejects the request for repayment of the sum owed in three years.

| 2. | The second ground is a claim that the Commission erred in the exercise of its discretion, or exceeded the limits of that discretion, and infringed the principle of sound administration. The applicant maintains that the Commission failed to take into account the factors relevant to the issuing of the contested decision, ignored material facts which had been submitted to it, and adopted solutions which lead inevitably to the applicant’s financial ruin. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second ground is a claim that the Commission erred in the exercise of its discretion, or exceeded the limits of that discretion, and infringed the principle of sound administration. The applicant maintains that the Commission failed to take into account the factors relevant to the issuing of the contested decision, ignored material facts which had been submitted to it, and adopted solutions which lead inevitably to the applicant’s financial ruin.

| 3. | The third ground is a claim of a breach of the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains that the contested decision is not a measure which is necessary in order to achieve the pursued budgetary objective. The decision places disproportionate pressure on the applicant’s vital interests and threatens its very survival and its ability to continue to operate as a business — production unit. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third ground is a claim of a breach of the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains that the contested decision is not a measure which is necessary in order to achieve the pursued budgetary objective. The decision places disproportionate pressure on the applicant’s vital interests and threatens its very survival and its ability to continue to operate as a business — production unit.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (ΕU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/31

---

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)

(Case T-279/15)

(2015/C 270/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic) — Community design No 4 692-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 in Case R 1285/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/32

---

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)

(Case T-280/15)

(2015/C 270/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design (Tyre treads) — Community design No 4 692-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 in Case R 1286/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/32

---

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)

(Case T-281/15)

(2015/C 270/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic) — Community design No 4 700-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1287/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/33

---

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)

(Case T-282/15)

(2015/C 270/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design (Tyre treads) — Community design No 4 700-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1288/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/34

---

Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Jochen Schweizer v OHIM (Du bist, was du erlebst.)

(Case T-301/15)

(2015/C 270/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jochen Schweizer GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Du bist, was du erlebst.’ — Application No 13 250 865

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2015 in Case R 3114/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/34

---

Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Airdata v Commission

(Case T-305/15)

(2015/C 270/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airdata AG (Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany) (represented by: E. Niitväli and M. Reysen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision C(2014) 4443 final, published on 13 March 2015, dated 2 July 2014, adopted in matter M.7018 Telefonica Deutschland/E-Plus pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision C(2014) 4443 final, published on 13 March 2015, dated 2 July 2014, adopted in matter M.7018 Telefonica Deutschland/E-Plus pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.

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 suffers from the breach of an important procedural duty as defined in Article 296(2) TFEU, as the Commission has failed to provide adequate reason for the measure it has adopted.






  — | The Commission failed to provide sufficiently clear and comprehensive reasons for its decision to accept certain commitments aimed at offsetting the serious competitive concerns it had identified in the course of the merger control investigation. The decision failed in particular to provide reasons why the Commission assumes that a third party beneficiary of the commitments would be able to effectively compete with the assets in question. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision suffers from the breach of an important procedural duty as defined in Article 296(2) TFEU, as the Commission has failed to provide adequate reason for the measure it has adopted.

—

The Commission failed to provide sufficiently clear and comprehensive reasons for its decision to accept certain commitments aimed at offsetting the serious competitive concerns it had identified in the course of the merger control investigation. The decision failed in particular to provide reasons why the Commission assumes that a third party beneficiary of the commitments would be able to effectively compete with the assets in question.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed in its duty to correctly apply the law as its decision suffers from a substantively incorrect application of EU merger control provisions.






  — | Parts of the commitments will most likely not be implemented, and parts will merely preserve the status quo ante, but they won’t contribute to an increased intensity of competition. The remaining parts are insufficient to offset the serious harm to competition caused by the transaction in question. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed in its duty to correctly apply the law as its decision suffers from a substantively incorrect application of EU merger control provisions.

—

Parts of the commitments will most likely not be implemented, and parts will merely preserve the status quo ante, but they won’t contribute to an increased intensity of competition. The remaining parts are insufficient to offset the serious harm to competition caused by the transaction in question.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/35

---

Action brought on 5 June 2015 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission

(Case T-307/15)

(2015/C 270/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 1&1 Telecom GmbH (Montabaur, Germany) (represented by: J. Murach, J. Schmidt and R. Klotz, lawyers, and P. Alexiadis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision C(2014) 4443 adopted on 2 July 2014 in Case No COMP/M.7018 — Telefónica Deutschland/E-Plus (the ‘Decision’) declaring the concentration between Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG and EPlus Mobilfunk GmbH & Co. KG compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, subject to Telefónica’s compliance with the commitments set out in the Annexes to the Decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision C(2014) 4443 adopted on 2 July 2014 in Case No COMP/M.7018 — Telefónica Deutschland/E-Plus (the ‘Decision’) declaring the concentration between Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG and EPlus Mobilfunk GmbH & Co. KG compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, subject to Telefónica’s compliance with the commitments set out in the Annexes to the Decision; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that in establishing whether the Concentration gives rise to a significant impediment to effective competition (‘SIEC’), the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements by failing to state reasons, including its duty of care, and engaged in a manifest error in the application of EU merger control rules in relation to:






  — | the omission to conduct an analysis of the vertical effects of the Concentration; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

—

the omission to conduct an analysis of the vertical effects of the Concentration;

| — | the insufficiency of the reasoning in support of the conclusion that it can be left open whether the Concentration gives rise to an SIEC on the wholesale market for access and call origination in Germany; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the insufficiency of the reasoning in support of the conclusion that it can be left open whether the Concentration gives rise to an SIEC on the wholesale market for access and call origination in Germany; and

| — | the insufficiency of the reasoning as regards conclusions drawn regarding horizontal coordinated effects in the wholesale market for access and call origination and in the retail mobile telecommunications market in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

—

the insufficiency of the reasoning as regards conclusions drawn regarding horizontal coordinated effects in the wholesale market for access and call origination and in the retail mobile telecommunications market in Germany.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed serious errors of law and manifest errors of assessment when it:






  — | accepted the Final Commitments proposed by Telefónica; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

—

accepted the Final Commitments proposed by Telefónica;

| — | concluded that these Final Commitments would address in full the SIEC; and |
| --- | --- |

—

concluded that these Final Commitments would address in full the SIEC; and

| — | authorised the Concentration subject to Telefónica’s compliance with the Final Commitments. |
| --- | --- |

—

authorised the Concentration subject to Telefónica’s compliance with the Final Commitments.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting its Decision, misused its powers by taking account policy considerations unrelated to competition rather than pursuing the competition objectives of the Treaties and the European Union Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’) (1). |
| --- | --- |

3.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/36

---

Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Reisenthel v OHIM (keep it easy)

(Case T-308/15)

(2015/C 270/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. Aliki Busse, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘keep it easy’ — Application No 12 877 924

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 2659/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/37

---

Appeal brought on 5 June 2015 by CW against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-124/13 CW v Parliament

(Case T-309/15 P)

(2015/C 270/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal admissible;

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint;

| — | award damages; and |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages; and

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted evidence and erred in law in finding that, in the decision rejecting the complaint, the appointing authority sought to endorse the substance of the decision refusing assistance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted evidence and erred in law in finding that, in the decision rejecting the complaint, the appointing authority sought to endorse the substance of the decision refusing assistance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted evidence and erred in law in considering that the Parliament did not make a manifest error of assessment in its choice of measures and methods for applying Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted evidence and erred in law in considering that the Parliament did not make a manifest error of assessment in its choice of measures and methods for applying Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/37

---

Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)

(Case T-312/15)

(2015/C 270/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MITOCHRON’ — Application for registration No 11 200 078

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2015 in Case R 507/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the complaint;

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss in its entirety the application filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss in its entirety the application filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | The trade marks involved in the dispute are not so similar as to be capable of being confused. |
| --- | --- |

—

The trade marks involved in the dispute are not so similar as to be capable of being confused.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/38

---

Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Bagpax Cargo Systems (BAG PAX)

(Case T-324/15)

(2015/C 270/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bagpax Cargo Systems e.K. (Saarlouis, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BAG PAX’

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2015 in Case R 1971/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/39

---

Action brought on 1st July 2015 — French Republic v European Commission

(Case T-344/15)

(2015/C 270/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the court to:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission GESTDEM 2014/6046 of 21 April 2015 concerning the confirmatory application for access pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission GESTDEM 2014/6046 of 21 April 2015 concerning the confirmatory application for access pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), which provides that a Member State may request an institution not to disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), which provides that a Member State may request an institution not to disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the obligation to give reasons concerning the non-application of the exception provided at the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the obligation to give reasons concerning the non-application of the exception provided at the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| 3. | Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging infringement of the second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The applicant contends that the Commission could have refused access to the documents sent by the French authorities in accordance with the procedure provided in Directive 98/34/EC (2), in so far as that procedure would constitute an investigation within the meaning of the article cited above. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging infringement of the second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The applicant contends that the Commission could have refused access to the documents sent by the French authorities in accordance with the procedure provided in Directive 98/34/EC (2), in so far as that procedure would constitute an investigation within the meaning of the article cited above.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/40

---

Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

(Case T-347/15)

(2015/C 270/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Uganda Commercial Impex (UCI) Ltd (Kampala, Uganda) (represented by: A. Meskarian, S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/614 (2) insofar as they apply to UCI (including the entry of UCI in entry b) 9 of the Annex to the Decision and the Regulation); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/614 (2) insofar as they apply to UCI (including the entry of UCI in entry b) 9 of the Annex to the Decision and the Regulation);

| — | insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to UCI; and |
| --- | --- |

—

insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to UCI; and

| — | order the Council to pay UCI’s costs of this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay UCI’s costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of UCI’s designation, as it was required to do. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of UCI’s designation, as it was required to do.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or UCI’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in UCI’s case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or UCI’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in UCI’s case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that UCI’s procedural rights, in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection have been violated, and the Council has failed to give adequate reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that UCI’s procedural rights, in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection have been violated, and the Council has failed to give adequate reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that UCI’s designation is any event in breach of its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that UCI’s designation is any event in breach of its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 of 20 April 2015 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 102, 21.4.2015, p. 43).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/614 of 20 April 2015 implementing Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 102, 21.4.2015, p. 10).

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/41

---

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Perry Ellis International Group v OHIM — CG (P)

(Case T-350/15)

(2015/C 270/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CG verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘P’ — Application for registration No 10 889 723

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 2441/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/42

---

Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB

(Case T-51/13) (1)

(2015/C 270/52)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/42

---

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2015 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-134/14) (1)

(2015/C 270/53)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/42

---

Order of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Seca Benelux and Others v Parliament

(Case T-311/14) (1)

(2015/C 270/54)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/42

---

Order of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission

(Case T-820/14) (1)

(2015/C 270/55)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/42

---

Order of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Pollo Delta di Scabin Giancarlo e C. v Commission

(Case T-821/14) (1)

(2015/C 270/56)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2015 — DP v ACER

(Case F-34/14) (1)

((Civil service - ACER staff - Member of the contract staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Action for annulment - Admissibility of the action - Plea of illegality of Article 6(2) of ACER’s GIP having regard to Article 85(1) of the CEOS - Action for damages - Notice period - Non-material harm - Damages))

(2015/C 270/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DP (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet and S. Vaona, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contractual agent contract and a claim of damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of 20 December 2013 by which the Director of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators refused to renew DP’s contract; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of 20 December 2013 by which the Director of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators refused to renew DP’s contract;

| 2) | Orders the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators to pay DP the sum of EUR 7 000; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators to pay DP the sum of EUR 7 000;

| 3) | Declares that the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by DP. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Declares that the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by DP.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 C 184, p. 46.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 July 2015 —  WR (*1) v Commission

(Case F-53/14) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Person treated as a dependent child - Person whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure - Conditions for granting - Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance - Recovery of overpayments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations))

(2015/C 270/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: WR (*1) (represented by: V. Simeons, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and A.-C. Simon)

Re:

Annulment of the decisions withdrawing the dependent person allowance granted to the applicant in respect of her mother and cover by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European institutions (JSIS) and annulment of the decisions to recover the sums overpaid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that  WR (*1) is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that  WR (*1) is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 58.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/44

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — De Almeida Pereira v Eurojust

(Case F-142/14) (1)

((Civil service - Eurojust staff - Member of the temporary staff - Vacancy notice - Candidate selection procedure - Examination of applications by a selection board - Admission to the next stage of the selection procedure - Conditions - Scoring of selection criteria - Required points threshold - Rejection of application - Action manifestly lacking any basis in law - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2015/C 270/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Manuel Antonio De Almeida Pereira (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: E.H. Schulze, lawyer)

Defendant: Eurojust (represented by: C. Deboyser and J. Carmona-Bermejo, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the second phase of the selection procedure, in the context of his candidature for the post of Advisor to the Office of the President of Eurojust.

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2) | Mr De Almeida Pereira is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Eurojust. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Mr De Almeida Pereira is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Eurojust.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9/3/2015, p. 30.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/45

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL

(Case F-75/14) (1)

(2015/C 270/60)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014, p. 48.

---

| 17.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/45

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL

(Case F-29/15) (1)

(2015/C 270/61)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015, p. 50.

---