# Official Journal C 377/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.377.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 377 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5621 December 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.377.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 377

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5621 December 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2013/C 377/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 367, 14.12.2013 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2013/C 377/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 367, 14.12.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 377/02 | Case C-617/11 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Appeal — Assignment — Automatic transfer — Decision to reassign an official from a third country to the Commission headquarters in Brussels (Belgium) — Decision annulled by the General Court after referral back by the Court of Justice — Compensation for the harm purportedly suffered as a result of the annulment of a decision to reassign) | 2 |
| 2013/C 377/03 | Case C-376/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio) — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell' Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali (Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges imposed on undertakings in the sector concerned — National legislation making operators of electronic communications subject to the payment of a charge intended to cover the operating costs of the national regulatory authorities) | 2 |
| 2013/C 377/04 | Case C-410/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — medi GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community word mark medi — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distortion of the evidence — None) | 3 |
| 2013/C 377/05 | Case C-615/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission (Appeal — Action for damages — Grants made for projects financed by the Culture 2000 programme — Claims for payment of various sums — Content of the application — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 3 |
| 2013/C 377/06 | Case C-616/12 P: Order of the Court of 12 September 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Time-limit for instituting proceedings) | 4 |
| 2013/C 377/07 | Case C-6/13 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public supply contracts — Call for tenders related to the supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Appeal clearly inadmissible or unfounded) | 4 |
| 2013/C 377/08 | Case C-82/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società cooperativa Madonna dei miracoli v Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Joint actions — Non-payment of financial aid by the Commission — Withdrawal by a Member State of its contribution — Question of fact — Internal situation — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Description of the factual context — Insufficiency — Hypothetical question — Manifest inadmissibility) | 5 |
| 2013/C 377/09 | Case C-78/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania | 5 |
| 2013/C 377/10 | Case C-251/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Östersunds tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 6 May 2013 — E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag v Kammarkollegiet and Others | 5 |
| 2013/C 377/11 | Case C-519/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others | 6 |
| 2013/C 377/12 | Case C-525/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck | 6 |
| 2013/C 377/13 | Case C-535/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Maria Patmanidi SA | 6 |
| 2013/C 377/14 | Case C-536/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Gazprom OAO, other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania | 7 |
| 2013/C 377/15 | Case C-546/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Agenzia delle Dogane and Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl | 7 |
| 2013/C 377/16 | Case C-547/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA OLIVER MEDICAL v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 8 |
| 2013/C 377/17 | Case C-551/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italia) lodged on 25 October 2013 — SETAR — v Comune di Quartu S. Elena | 9 |
| 2013/C 377/18 | Case C-41/12 P: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2013 — Monster Cable Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited | 9 |
| 2013/C 377/19 | Case C-108/12: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea | 9 |
| 2013/C 377/20 | Case C-135/12: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 9 |
| 2013/C 377/21 | Case C-564/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti | 9 |
| 2013/C 377/22 | Case C-203/13: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria | 10 |
| 2013/C 377/23 | Case C-262/13: Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 10 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 377/24 | Case T-570/08 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Deutsche Post v Commission (State aid — Postal service — Decision requiring the production of information — Appropriate nature of the time-limit — Obligation to state reasons — Relevance of the information requested) | 11 |
| 2013/C 377/25 | Case T-499/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — MOL v Commission (State aid — Agreement between the Hungarian State and the oil and gas company MOL relating to mining fees in connection with the extraction of hydrocarbons — Subsequent change in the statutory system of fees — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Selective nature) | 11 |
| 2013/C 377/26 | Case T-536/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2013 — Kessel v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for Community word mark Premeno — Earlier national word mark Pramino — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 11 |
| 2013/C 377/27 | Case T-455/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Europol v Kalmár (Appeal — Civil service — Europol staff — Fixed-term contracts — Dismissal — Statement of reasons — Rights of the defence — Financial compensation) | 12 |
| 2013/C 377/28 | Case T-456/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — International Cadmium Association (ICdA) and Others v European Commission (REACH — Transitional measures concerning the restrictions on the manufacture, marketing and use of cadmium and its compounds — Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Restrictions on the use of cadmium pigments in plastic materials — Manifest error of assessment — Risk analysis) | 12 |
| 2013/C 377/29 | Case T-666/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma (Bounding feline) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a bounding feline — Earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Overall impression not different — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 13 |
| 2013/C 377/30 | Case T-147/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission (Customs union — Imports of preserved mushrooms from China — Decision finding no justification for the remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities — Obvious negligence on the part of the importer — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Sound administration — Equal treatment) | 13 |
| 2013/C 377/31 | Case T-245/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Gamesa Eólica v OHIM — Enercon (Blended shades of green) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Absolute ground for refusal — Application for Community trade mark consisting of blended shades of green — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 62 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 13 |
| 2013/C 377/32 | Case T-533/12: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark IBSolution — Earlier Community figurative mark IBS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2013/C 377/33 | Case T-552/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — North Drilling v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of fact — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment) | 14 |
| 2013/C 377/34 | Case T-52/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark FICKEN — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark contrary to public order and good morals — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 15 |
| 2013/C 377/35 | Case T-54/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN LIQUORS) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark FICKEN LIQUORS — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 15 |
| 2013/C 377/36 | Case T-63/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Three-N-Products v OHIM — Munindra (AYUR) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark AYUR — Earlier Benelux word marks AYUS — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 15 |
| 2013/C 377/37 | Case T-440/08: Order of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — ZDF and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion (1-2-3.TV) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 16 |
| 2013/C 377/38 | Case T-500/13: Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Seatech International and Others v Commission | 16 |
| 2013/C 377/39 | Case T-536/13: Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Softkinetic Software (KINECT) | 16 |
| 2013/C 377/40 | Case T-550/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission | 17 |
| 2013/C 377/41 | Case T-555/13: Action brought on 21 October 2013 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL) | 18 |
| 2013/C 377/42 | Case T-579/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell'Urbe v Commission | 18 |
| 2013/C 377/43 | Case T-583/13: Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts v Commission | 19 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2013/C 377/44 | Case F-80/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Gomes Moreira v ECDC (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Anticipated termination of a fixed-term contract — Breach of trust — Disciplinary misconduct) | 20 |
| 2013/C 377/45 | Case F-104/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Bartha v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition EPSO/AD/56/06 — Reopening of the competition procedure — Measures of execution of the judgment in Case F-50/08) | 20 |
| 2013/C 377/46 | Case F-14/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — 2011 promotion procedure — Reference multiplier rates) | 20 |
| 2013/C 377/47 | Case F-63/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — Compliance with a judgment — Costs — Reimbursement of costs — Reimbursement of the sum paid by way of recoverable costs following a judgment annulling in part the judgment by which the applicant was ordered to pay those costs) | 21 |
| 2013/C 377/48 | Case F-103/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Doyle v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal) | 21 |
| 2013/C 377/49 | Case F-104/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Hanschmann v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal) | 21 |
| 2013/C 377/50 | Case F-105/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Knöll v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant an indeterminate contract — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment) | 22 |
| 2013/C 377/51 | Case F-132/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None) | 22 |
| 2013/C 377/52 | Case F-19/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None) | 23 |
| 2013/C 377/53 | Case F-60/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — CA v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Application instituting proceedings — Formal requirements — Statement of the grounds on which the application is based — Action manifestly inadmissible) | 23 |
| 2013/C 377/54 | Case F-94/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility) | 23 |
| 2013/C 377/55 | Case F-123/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Palleschi v Commission (Civil Service — Contract staff for auxiliary tasks — Article 3c of the CEOS — Application for reclassification of the contract as a temporary contract for an indefinite period — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law) | 23 |
| 2013/C 377/56 | Case F-65/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission | 24 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 377/02

Case C-617/11 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Appeal — Assignment — Automatic transfer — Decision to reassign an official from a third country to the Commission headquarters in Brussels (Belgium) — Decision annulled by the General Court after referral back by the Court of Justice — Compensation for the harm purportedly suffered as a result of the annulment of a decision to reassign)

2

2013/C 377/03

Case C-376/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio) — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell' Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali (Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges imposed on undertakings in the sector concerned — National legislation making operators of electronic communications subject to the payment of a charge intended to cover the operating costs of the national regulatory authorities)

2

2013/C 377/04

Case C-410/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — medi GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community word mark medi — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distortion of the evidence — None)

3

2013/C 377/05

Case C-615/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission (Appeal — Action for damages — Grants made for projects financed by the Culture 2000 programme — Claims for payment of various sums — Content of the application — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

3

2013/C 377/06

Case C-616/12 P: Order of the Court of 12 September 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Time-limit for instituting proceedings)

4

2013/C 377/07

Case C-6/13 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public supply contracts — Call for tenders related to the supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Appeal clearly inadmissible or unfounded)

4

2013/C 377/08

Case C-82/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società cooperativa Madonna dei miracoli v Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Joint actions — Non-payment of financial aid by the Commission — Withdrawal by a Member State of its contribution — Question of fact — Internal situation — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Description of the factual context — Insufficiency — Hypothetical question — Manifest inadmissibility)

5

2013/C 377/09

Case C-78/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania

5

2013/C 377/10

Case C-251/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Östersunds tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 6 May 2013 — E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag v Kammarkollegiet and Others

5

2013/C 377/11

Case C-519/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others

6

2013/C 377/12

Case C-525/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck

6

2013/C 377/13

Case C-535/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Maria Patmanidi SA

6

2013/C 377/14

Case C-536/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Gazprom OAO, other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania

7

2013/C 377/15

Case C-546/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Agenzia delle Dogane and Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl

7

2013/C 377/16

Case C-547/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA OLIVER MEDICAL v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

8

2013/C 377/17

Case C-551/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italia) lodged on 25 October 2013 — SETAR — v Comune di Quartu S. Elena

9

2013/C 377/18

Case C-41/12 P: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2013 — Monster Cable Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited

9

2013/C 377/19

Case C-108/12: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea

9

2013/C 377/20

Case C-135/12: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

9

2013/C 377/21

Case C-564/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti

9

2013/C 377/22

Case C-203/13: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

10

2013/C 377/23

Case C-262/13: Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

10

General Court

2013/C 377/24

Case T-570/08 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Deutsche Post v Commission (State aid — Postal service — Decision requiring the production of information — Appropriate nature of the time-limit — Obligation to state reasons — Relevance of the information requested)

11

2013/C 377/25

Case T-499/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — MOL v Commission (State aid — Agreement between the Hungarian State and the oil and gas company MOL relating to mining fees in connection with the extraction of hydrocarbons — Subsequent change in the statutory system of fees — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Selective nature)

11

2013/C 377/26

Case T-536/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2013 — Kessel v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for Community word mark Premeno — Earlier national word mark Pramino — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

11

2013/C 377/27

Case T-455/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Europol v Kalmár (Appeal — Civil service — Europol staff — Fixed-term contracts — Dismissal — Statement of reasons — Rights of the defence — Financial compensation)

12

2013/C 377/28

Case T-456/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — International Cadmium Association (ICdA) and Others v European Commission (REACH — Transitional measures concerning the restrictions on the manufacture, marketing and use of cadmium and its compounds — Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Restrictions on the use of cadmium pigments in plastic materials — Manifest error of assessment — Risk analysis)

12

2013/C 377/29

Case T-666/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma (Bounding feline) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a bounding feline — Earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Overall impression not different — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

13

2013/C 377/30

Case T-147/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission (Customs union — Imports of preserved mushrooms from China — Decision finding no justification for the remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities — Obvious negligence on the part of the importer — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Sound administration — Equal treatment)

13

2013/C 377/31

Case T-245/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Gamesa Eólica v OHIM — Enercon (Blended shades of green) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Absolute ground for refusal — Application for Community trade mark consisting of blended shades of green — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 62 of Regulation No 207/2009)

13

2013/C 377/32

Case T-533/12: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark IBSolution — Earlier Community figurative mark IBS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

14

2013/C 377/33

Case T-552/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — North Drilling v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of fact — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

14

2013/C 377/34

Case T-52/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark FICKEN — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark contrary to public order and good morals — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

15

2013/C 377/35

Case T-54/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN LIQUORS) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark FICKEN LIQUORS — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

15

2013/C 377/36

Case T-63/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Three-N-Products v OHIM — Munindra (AYUR) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark AYUR — Earlier Benelux word marks AYUS — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

15

2013/C 377/37

Case T-440/08: Order of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — ZDF and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion (1-2-3.TV) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

16

2013/C 377/38

Case T-500/13: Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Seatech International and Others v Commission

16

2013/C 377/39

Case T-536/13: Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Softkinetic Software (KINECT)

16

2013/C 377/40

Case T-550/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

17

2013/C 377/41

Case T-555/13: Action brought on 21 October 2013 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)

18

2013/C 377/42

Case T-579/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell'Urbe v Commission

18

2013/C 377/43

Case T-583/13: Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts v Commission

19

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2013/C 377/44

Case F-80/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Gomes Moreira v ECDC (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Anticipated termination of a fixed-term contract — Breach of trust — Disciplinary misconduct)

20

2013/C 377/45

Case F-104/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Bartha v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition EPSO/AD/56/06 — Reopening of the competition procedure — Measures of execution of the judgment in Case F-50/08)

20

2013/C 377/46

Case F-14/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — 2011 promotion procedure — Reference multiplier rates)

20

2013/C 377/47

Case F-63/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — Compliance with a judgment — Costs — Reimbursement of costs — Reimbursement of the sum paid by way of recoverable costs following a judgment annulling in part the judgment by which the applicant was ordered to pay those costs)

21

2013/C 377/48

Case F-103/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Doyle v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)

21

2013/C 377/49

Case F-104/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Hanschmann v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)

21

2013/C 377/50

Case F-105/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Knöll v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant an indeterminate contract — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment)

22

2013/C 377/51

Case F-132/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None)

22

2013/C 377/52

Case F-19/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None)

23

2013/C 377/53

Case F-60/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — CA v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Application instituting proceedings — Formal requirements — Statement of the grounds on which the application is based — Action manifestly inadmissible)

23

2013/C 377/54

Case F-94/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

23

2013/C 377/55

Case F-123/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Palleschi v Commission (Civil Service — Contract staff for auxiliary tasks — Article 3c of the CEOS — Application for reclassification of the contract as a temporary contract for an indefinite period — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

23

2013/C 377/56

Case F-65/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

24

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/1

---

2013/C 377/01

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

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013

Past publications

OJ C 359, 7.12.2013

OJ C 352, 30.11.2013

OJ C 344, 23.11.2013

OJ C 336, 16.11.2013

OJ C 325, 9.11.2013

OJ C 313, 26.10.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/2

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission

(Case C-617/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Assignment - Automatic transfer - Decision to reassign an official from a third country to the Commission headquarters in Brussels (Belgium) - Decision annulled by the General Court after referral back by the Court of Justice - Compensation for the harm purportedly suffered as a result of the annulment of a decision to reassign)

2013/C 377/02

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission, by which that court dismissed, in part, first, an application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 18 March 2002 to reassign the appellant from the Commission Delegation in Luanda (Angola) to the Directorate General for Development in Brussels (Belgium), of all preliminary, connected or consecutive measures, in particular those relating to the recruitment of another official to occupy his post, of the Commission’s notes of 13 and 14 November 2001 and of the opinion or opinions of the External Service Steering Committee, and, second, a claim for allowances in connection with his duties in Angola and damages for harm suffered — Rights of the defence — Failure to state reasons — Distortion of the facts

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/2

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio) — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell' Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

(Case C-376/12) (1)

(Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges imposed on undertakings in the sector concerned - National legislation making operators of electronic communications subject to the payment of a charge intended to cover the operating costs of the national regulatory authorities)

2013/C 377/03

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sky Italia Srl

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell' Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

Intervening parties: Television Broadcasting System SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

Re:

Request for preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Interpretation of Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘the Authorisation Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Administrative charges imposed on undertakings — Legislation providing that the national regularity authorities’ costs which are not financed by the State are to be imposed upon individual undertakings in the sector concerned according to the income they generate in respect of the sale of goods or the provision of relevant services

Operative part of the order

Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘the Authorisation Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which undertakings providing electronic communications services or networks are liable to pay a charge intended to cover all the costs incurred by the NRA which are not financed by the State, the amount of which being determined according to the income received by those undertakings, provided that that charge is exclusively intended to cover the costs relating to the activities in paragraph (1)(a) of that provision, that the totality of the income obtained in respect of that charge does not exceed the total costs relating to those activities and that that charge is imposed upon individual undertakings in an objective, transparent and proportionate manner, which is for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/3

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — medi GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-410/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the Community word mark medi - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distortion of the evidence - None)

2013/C 377/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: medi GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case T-470/09 medi v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2009 (Case R 692/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ‘medi’ as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Distinctive character of the word sign ‘medi’

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | medi GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

medi GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/3

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

(Case C-615/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for damages - Grants made for projects financed by the ‘Culture 2000’ programme - Claims for payment of various sums - Content of the application - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 377/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and D. Roussanov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action against the Commission, seeking payment of, first, the sum of EUR 38 585,42 together with interest at the rate of 12 % from 1 January 2001 and the sum of EUR 27 618,91 together with interest at the rate of 12 % from 1 March 2003 and, second, of the sum of EUR 26 459,38 excluding VAT in respect of the fees of lawyers instructed during the pre-litigation procedure — Infringement of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater, is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater, is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/4

---

Order of the Court of 12 September 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-616/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Time-limit for instituting proceedings)

2013/C 377/06

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH (represented by: K Chrysogonos and A. Kaidatzis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-466/11 Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and Hoern v Commission, in which the General Court declared an action for the annulment of Commission decision C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010, accepting the undertakings offered by Greece in exchange for measures required by the Commission in its decision C(2008) 3118 final of 2 July 2008, declaring aid granted by the Greek authorities to Ellinika Nafpigeia (Hellenic Shipyards, ‘HSY’), to be incompatible with the common market, in the context of amendments to the initial investment plan relating to the restructuring of that shipyard (State aid C 16/2004 (ex NN29/2004, CP 71/2002 et CP 133/2005)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/4

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-6/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public supply contracts - Call for tenders related to the supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines - Rejection of a tender - Appeal clearly inadmissible or unfounded)

2013/C 377/07

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: IDT Biologika GmbH (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2010 awarding the contract (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium led by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant — Whether the limits to which the Commission is subject in the exercise of its discretion were exceeded

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | IDT Biologika GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

IDT Biologika GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/5

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società cooperativa Madonna dei miracoli v Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

(Case C-82/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Joint actions - Non-payment of financial aid by the Commission - Withdrawal by a Member State of its contribution - Question of fact - Internal situation - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Description of the factual context - Insufficiency - Hypothetical question - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 377/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Società cooperativa Madonna dei miracoli

Defendant: Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (OJ 1990 L 91, p. 1), and of Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products (OJ 1990 L 173, p. 71) — Joint actions — Non-payment of financial aid by the Commission — Member State not having paid its contribution following the Commission’s failure to pay the aid

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy).

| 2. | As to the remainder, the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As to the remainder, the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/5

---

Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania

(Case C-78/13 P)

2013/C 377/09

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Constantin Hârsulescu (represented by: I.L. Cioplea, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Romania

By order of 3 October 2013, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and the application for legal aid.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Östersunds tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 6 May 2013 — E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag v Kammarkollegiet and Others

(Case C-251/13)

2013/C 377/10

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Östersunds tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag

Defendants: Kammarkollegiet, Ljustorp socken ekonomisk förening, Länsstyrelsen i Västernorrlands län, Murberget Länsmuseet Västernorrland, Naturskyddsföreningen Timrå, Naturvårdsverket, Sveriges Sportfiske- och Fiskevårdsförbund, Timrå kommun, Miljö- och byggnadsnämnden, Älvräddarnas samorganisation

On 20 August 2013, the President of Court ordered the discontinuance of the case.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others

(Case C-519/13)

2013/C 377/11

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd

Defendants: Dau Si Senh, Alpha Panareti Public Ltd, Susan Towson, Stewart Cresswell, Gillian Cresswell, Julie Gaskell, Peter Gaskell, Richard Wernham, Tracy Wernham, Joanne Zorani, Richard Simpson

Questions referred

| 1. | Is service of the standard form pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) necessary in every case or can there be exceptions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is service of the standard form pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) necessary in every case or can there be exceptions?

| 2. | If it is considered that service is necessary in every case, does the omission in the present case constitute a reason why service is invalid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it is considered that service is necessary in every case, does the omission in the present case constitute a reason why service is invalid?

| 3. | If not, can it be effected, in keeping with the spirit of Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007, by service on the lawyer acting for the respondents appearing under protest, who is under an obligation vis-à-vis his clients to accept service, or must service be effected anew under the procedure provided for in Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, can it be effected, in keeping with the spirit of Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007, by service on the lawyer acting for the respondents appearing under protest, who is under an obligation vis-à-vis his clients to accept service, or must service be effected anew under the procedure provided for in Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007?

---

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

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck

(Case C-525/13)

2013/C 377/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vlaams Gewest

Respondent: Heidi Van Den Broeck

Question referred

Must the first paragraph of Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (1) of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 be interpreted as meaning that the refusal, for the calendar year in question, to grant ‘the aid to which the farmer would have been entitled pursuant to Article 31(2) ... under the aid scheme concerned’, refers to the aid payable in implementation of ‘the aid scheme concerned’, as referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (2) of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, so that it is not only the aid for the ‘crop group concerned’ which must be refused, but the entire aid payable in implementation of one of the aid schemes referred to in that provision, of which the crop group concerned forms part?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Maria Patmanidi SA

(Case C-535/13)

2013/C 377/13

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha

Defendant: Maria Patmanidi SA

Question referred

What is the scope of the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 89/104/ΕEC (1) (now Article 7 of Directive 2008/95/ΕC) (2) and of Article 13 of Regulation (ΕC) 40/94/ΕC (3) (now Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) (4) in relation to the right of a trade mark proprietor to prohibit parallel imports into the EU and the EEA of its products which were first supplied or put on the market in a country outside the EU and the EEA, especially in the case of products with a large profit margin and price squeezing, as evidenced by large fluctuations in pricing policy, and/or where parallel imports may result in considerable reductions in prices to end consumers, for their benefit and the benefit of competition, as in the case of all types of spare parts for motor vehicles, in light of the effect, in isolation or combination, of: (a) the provisions of Articles 101and 102 TFEU; (b) the provisions of Articles I, XI.1, ΙΙΙ.4 and XX(d) and GATT 1994 law in general; and (c) Articles I and [Χ]XIV GΑΤΤ 1994, especially as they extend the scope of the provisions of Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC and of Article 13(1) of Regulation (ΕC) No 207/2009 to products put on the market in contracting parties of the GΑΤΤ 1994 and reciprocity issues arise between them?

---

(1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1988 L 40. p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 28, p. 18).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

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

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Gazprom OAO, other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania

(Case C-536/13)

2013/C 377/14

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Gazprom OAO

Other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania, represented by the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania

Questions referred

| 1. | Where an arbitral tribunal issues an anti-suit injunction and thereby prohibits a party from bringing certain claims before a court of a Member State, which under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation (1) has jurisdiction to hear the civil case as to the substance, does the court of a Member State have the right to refuse to recognise such an award of the arbitral tribunal because it restricts the court’s right to determine itself whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where an arbitral tribunal issues an anti-suit injunction and thereby prohibits a party from bringing certain claims before a court of a Member State, which under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation (1) has jurisdiction to hear the civil case as to the substance, does the court of a Member State have the right to refuse to recognise such an award of the arbitral tribunal because it restricts the court’s right to determine itself whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation?

| 2. | Should the first question be answered in the affirmative, does the same also apply where the anti-suit injunction issued by the arbitral tribunal orders a party to the proceedings to limit his claims in a case which is being heard in another Member State and the court of that Member State has jurisdiction to hear that case under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the first question be answered in the affirmative, does the same also apply where the anti-suit injunction issued by the arbitral tribunal orders a party to the proceedings to limit his claims in a case which is being heard in another Member State and the court of that Member State has jurisdiction to hear that case under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation?

| 3. | Can a national court, seeking to safeguard the primacy of European Union law and the full effectiveness of the Brussels I Regulation, refuse to recognise an award of an arbitral tribunal if such an award restricts the right of the national court to decide on its own jurisdiction and powers in a case which falls within the jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a national court, seeking to safeguard the primacy of European Union law and the full effectiveness of the Brussels I Regulation, refuse to recognise an award of an arbitral tribunal if such an award restricts the right of the national court to decide on its own jurisdiction and powers in a case which falls within the jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Agenzia delle Dogane and Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl

(Case C-546/13)

2013/C 377/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane

Respondent: ADL American Dataline Srl

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it contrary to Articles 10(2) and 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 (1) and to the principle of legal certainty to interpret the amendments made to the Explanatory Notes accompanying Chapter 84 of the Schedule of Customs duties set out in Part II of Annex I thereto by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/06 of 17 October 2006 (2) (which excludes loudspeakers from heading 8471 where they are presented separately from automatic data-processing machines) in order to find that the goods imported by ADL American Dataline s.r.l. (3) ... perform a specific function (reproduction and amplification of sound) ‘other’ than data processing? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it contrary to Articles 10(2) and 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 (1) and to the principle of legal certainty to interpret the amendments made to the Explanatory Notes accompanying Chapter 84 of the Schedule of Customs duties set out in Part II of Annex I thereto by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/06 of 17 October 2006 (2) (which excludes loudspeakers from heading 8471 where they are presented separately from automatic data-processing machines) in order to find that the goods imported by ADL American Dataline s.r.l. (3) ... perform a specific function (reproduction and amplification of sound) ‘other’ than data processing?

| 2. | Must the goods imported by ADL American Dataline s.r.l. ..., namely, ‘loudspeakers’ marketed separately from automatic data-processing machines, be regarded as devices ‘performing a specific function other than data processing’ — assuming that the reproduction and amplification of sound ... must be regarded as such — or is it not possible to regard them as system units performing a specific function other than data processing, since, having regard to their specific technical characteristics (connection only via USB cable; operating system MAC OS 9 required), they ‘have no function which they would be capable of performing without the assistance of such a machine [that is to say, without the assistance of an automatic data-processing machine’ (see Case C-339/98 Peacock AG [2000] ECR I-8947, paragraphs 14 and 15, and Case C-142/06 Olicom [2007] ECR I-6675, paragraphs 20, 29 and 30, which, although referring to other types of device — network cards and ‘combination’ cards — seem to indicate that a lack of any ‘other’ specific function stems from the fact that (i) the device cannot function without a personal computer and (ii) the device has the capacity to accept and to convert at output signals transmitted by the processor)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the goods imported by ADL American Dataline s.r.l. ..., namely, ‘loudspeakers’ marketed separately from automatic data-processing machines, be regarded as devices ‘performing a specific function other than data processing’ — assuming that the reproduction and amplification of sound ... must be regarded as such — or is it not possible to regard them as system units performing a specific function other than data processing, since, having regard to their specific technical characteristics (connection only via USB cable; operating system MAC OS 9 required), they ‘have no function which they would be capable of performing without the assistance of such a machine [that is to say, without the assistance of an automatic data-processing machine’ (see Case C-339/98 Peacock AG [2000] ECR I-8947, paragraphs 14 and 15, and Case C-142/06 Olicom [2007] ECR I-6675, paragraphs 20, 29 and 30, which, although referring to other types of device — network cards and ‘combination’ cards — seem to indicate that a lack of any ‘other’ specific function stems from the fact that (i) the device cannot function without a personal computer and (ii) the device has the capacity to accept and to convert at output signals transmitted by the processor)?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1).

(3)  ‘[L]oudspeakers produced by the US company Harman Multimedia for exclusive use as output peripheral units for “APPLE” computers’.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-547/13)

2013/C 377/16

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Must headings 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that the following devices: ‘UltraPulse Encore laser’ tips, ‘Light Sheer ST’, ‘IPL Quantum SR’ and its ‘HR upgd for IPL Quantum’ and ‘DL upgd for IPL Quantumsystem’ heads, ‘Ultrashape contour I’ treatment heads, the ‘IPL Quantum SR 560’ device, the ‘Ls-Duet’ device and its accessories, and the Lumenis M22 appliance, which are used in the practice of medicine, may be classified under those headings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must headings 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that the following devices: ‘UltraPulse Encore laser’ tips, ‘Light Sheer ST’, ‘IPL Quantum SR’ and its ‘HR upgd for IPL Quantum’ and ‘DL upgd for IPL Quantumsystem’ heads, ‘Ultrashape contour I’ treatment heads, the ‘IPL Quantum SR 560’ device, the ‘Ls-Duet’ device and its accessories, and the Lumenis M22 appliance, which are used in the practice of medicine, may be classified under those headings?

| 2. | If headings 9018 and 9019 should not be applicable, may those goods be classified under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If headings 9018 and 9019 should not be applicable, may those goods be classified under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?

| 3. | If the reply is negative, what other heading provides the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature for the purposes of classification? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the reply is negative, what other heading provides the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature for the purposes of classification?

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 1, p. 1.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italia) lodged on 25 October 2013 — SETAR — v Comune di Quartu S. Elena

(Case C-551/13)

2013/C 377/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SETAR — Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale

Opposing party: Comune di Quartu S. Elena

Question referred

Does Community law preclude the rules laid down in Article 188 of Legislative Decree No 152/2006 and Decree of the Minister for the Environment of 17 December 2009, under which the entry into force of the legislation transposing Directive 2008/98/EC (1) into national law is to be delayed pending the adoption of a ministerial decree laying down the related technical rules and specifying the time-limits within which that implementing legislation is to enter into force?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/9

---

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2013 — Monster Cable Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited

(Case C-41/12 P) (1)

2013/C 377/18

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/9

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea

(Case C-108/12) (1)

2013/C 377/19

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/9

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-135/12) (1)

2013/C 377/20

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/9

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti

(Case C-564/12) (1)

2013/C 377/21

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/10

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-203/13) (1)

2013/C 377/22

Language of the case: Bulgarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/10

---

Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-262/13) (1)

2013/C 377/23

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

---

General Court

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Deutsche Post v Commission

(Case T-570/08 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Postal service - Decision requiring the production of information - Appropriate nature of the time-limit - Obligation to state reasons - Relevance of the information requested)

2013/C 377/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG [C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)].

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — MOL v Commission

(Case T-499/10) (1)

(State aid - Agreement between the Hungarian State and the oil and gas company MOL relating to mining fees in connection with the extraction of hydrocarbons - Subsequent change in the statutory system of fees - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Selective nature)

2013/C 377/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister, and C. van der Meer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

Re:

Principally, application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/88/EU of 9 June 2010 on State aid C 1/09 (ex NN 69/08) granted by Hungary to MOL Nyrt. (OJ 2011 L 34, p. 55) and, in the alternative, for annulment of that decision in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts from the latter.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls European Commission Decision 2011/88/EU of 9 June 2010 on State aid C 1/09 (ex NN 69/08) granted by Hungary to MOL Nyrt; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls European Commission Decision 2011/88/EU of 9 June 2010 on State aid C 1/09 (ex NN 69/08) granted by Hungary to MOL Nyrt;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2013 — Kessel v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)

(Case T-536/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for Community word mark Premeno - Earlier national word mark Pramino - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 377/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany) (represented: initially by S. Bund, then A. Jacob, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: M. Wenz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Janssen-Cilag GmbH and Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH;

| 3. | Orders Janssen-Cilag GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Janssen-Cilag GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Europol v Kalmár

(Case T-455/11) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Europol staff - Fixed-term contracts - Dismissal - Statement of reasons - Rights of the defence - Financial compensation)

2013/C 377/27

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury and J. Arnould, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and E. Antypas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Andreas Kalmár (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: D. Coppens, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2011 in Case F-83/09 Kalmár v Europol, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Police Office (Europol) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andreas Kalmár in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Police Office (Europol) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andreas Kalmár in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — International Cadmium Association (ICdA) and Others v European Commission

(Case T-456/11) (1)

(REACH - Transitional measures concerning the restrictions on the manufacture, marketing and use of cadmium and its compounds - Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Restrictions on the use of cadmium pigments in plastic materials - Manifest error of assessment - Risk analysis)

2013/C 377/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: International Cadmium Association (ICdA), established in Brussels (Belgium), Rockwood Pigments (UK) Ltd, established in Stoke-on-Trent (United Kingdom), James M Brown Ltd, established in Stoke-on-Trent (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Cana,)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, assisted by K. Sawyer, barrister, and subsequently by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve,)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium) (OJ 2011 L 134, p. 2), in so far as it established restrictions on the use of cadmium in plastic materials other than those in respect of which that use was restricted before the adoption of Regulation No 494/2011

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium) in so far as it restricts the use of cadmium sulpho-selenide orange (No CAS 1256-57-4), cadmium sulpho-selenide red (No CAS 58339-34-7) and cadmium zinc sulphide (No CAS 8048 07-5) in mixtures and articles produced from synthetic organic polymers other than those in respect of which that use was restricted before the adoption of Regulation No 494/2011; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium) in so far as it restricts the use of cadmium sulpho-selenide orange (No CAS 1256-57-4), cadmium sulpho-selenide red (No CAS 58339-34-7) and cadmium zinc sulphide (No CAS 8048 07-5) in mixtures and articles produced from synthetic organic polymers other than those in respect of which that use was restricted before the adoption of Regulation No 494/2011;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear 90 % of its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by International Cadmium Association (ICdA), Rockwood Pigments (UK) Ltd and James M Brown Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear 90 % of its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by International Cadmium Association (ICdA), Rockwood Pigments (UK) Ltd and James M Brown Ltd;

| 4. | Orders ICdA, Rockwood Pigments (UK) and James M Brown to bear 10 % of their own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders ICdA, Rockwood Pigments (UK) and James M Brown to bear 10 % of their own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma (Bounding feline)

(Case T-666/11) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a bounding feline - Earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Overall impression not different - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2013/C 377/29

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Danuta Budziewska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Masłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2011 (Case R 1137/2010-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport and Danuta Budziewska.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Danuta Budziewska to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Danuta Budziewska to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission

(Case T-147/12) (1)

(Customs union - Imports of preserved mushrooms from China - Decision finding no justification for the remission of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities - Obvious negligence on the part of the importer - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Sound administration - Equal treatment)

2013/C 377/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Keppenne and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 6393 final of 16 September 2011 determining that remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Gamesa Eólica v OHIM — Enercon (Blended shades of green)

(Case T-245/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal - Application for Community trade mark consisting of blended shades of green - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 62 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 377/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Gamesa Eólica SL and Enercon GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Gamesa Eólica, SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Gamesa Eólica, SL.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution)

(Case T-533/12) (1)

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

2013/C 377/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IBSolution GmbH (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

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: IBS AB (Solna, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2012 (Case R 771/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between IBS AB and IBSolution GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IBSolution GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IBSolution GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — North Drilling v Council

(Case T-552/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of fact - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

2013/C 377/33

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. De Elera, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as those measures affect the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of North Drilling Co. in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of North Drilling Co. in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

| 2. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of North Drilling in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of North Drilling in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

| 3. | Annuls Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 in so far as it concerns North Drilling; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 in so far as it concerns North Drilling;

| 4. | Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2012/635, to be maintained as regards North Drilling from its entry into force, on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, until the partial annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2012/635, to be maintained as regards North Drilling from its entry into force, on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, until the partial annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

| 5. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by North Drilling in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by North Drilling in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN)

(Case T-52/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark FICKEN - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark contrary to public order and good morals - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 377/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG (Schemmerhofen, Germany) (represented by: M. Wekwerth, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2012 (Case R 493/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign FICKEN as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN LIQUORS)

(Case T-54/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark FICKEN LIQUORS - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 377/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG (Schemmerhofen, Germany) (represented by: M. Wekwerth, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2012 (Case R 2544/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark FICKEN LIQUORS as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Order Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Three-N-Products v OHIM — Munindra (AYUR)

(Case T-63/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AYUR - Earlier Benelux word marks AYUS - Likelihood of confusion - Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 377/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: M. Thewes and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2012 (Case R 2296/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Munindra Holding BV and Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Three-N-Products Private Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Three-N-Products Private Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/16

---

Order of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — ZDF and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion (1-2-3.TV)

(Case T-440/08) (1)

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

2013/C 377/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: 1-2-3.TV GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented: initially by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and E. Nicolás Gómez, subsequently by K. Kleinschmidt and U. Grübler, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) (Mainz, Germany); and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented: initially by B. Krause and F. Cordt, subsequently by B. Krause, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (Case R 1076/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between 1-2-3.TV GmbH and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion GmbH.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/16

---

Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Seatech International and Others v Commission

(Case T-500/13)

2013/C 377/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Seatech International, Inc. (Cartagena, Colombia); Tuna Atlantic, Ltda (Cartagena); and Comextun, Ltda (Cartagena) (represented by: F. Foucault, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 672/2013 of 15 July 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in so far as it designates the Marta Lucia R as a ship that engages in IUU fishing. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 672/2013 of 15 July 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in so far as it designates the Marta Lucia R as a ship that engages in IUU fishing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim that the Marta Lucia R was removed from the list of ships considered to be engaging in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, held by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, and that it should therefore be similarly removed from the European Union list of vessels engaged in IUU fishing.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/16

---

Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Softkinetic Software (KINECT)

(Case T-536/13)

2013/C 377/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, United States) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Softkinetic Software SA (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 July 2013 given in Case R 2373/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 July 2013 given in Case R 2373/2011-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KINECT’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9 058 141

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SOFTKINETIC’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28, 38, 41 and 42 — International registration No 1 025 034 designating the European Union; the word mark ‘SOFTKINETIC’ for goods and services in classes 9, 28, 38, 41 and 42 — Benelux trade mark registration No 850 946

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(5) and 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/17

---

Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-550/13)

2013/C 377/40

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, X. Basakou and A. Vasilopoulou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s final and definitive decision of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 5225 and published at OJ 2013 L 219), as regards the part relating to the Hellenic Republic; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s final and definitive decision of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 5225 and published at OJ 2013 L 219), as regards the part relating to the Hellenic Republic;

| — | 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 the following grounds for annulment:

| | By the first ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic contends that the imposition of corrections in 2013 after more than four years’ inaction on the part of the Commission regarding deficiencies in the control system, which relate to the financial years 2006 and 2007 and had already been identified in 2008, infringes the general principle of legal certainty and the general principles requiring action to be taken within a reasonable time and the Commission to act timeously, on account of the unjustifiable and excessive length of the procedure which is prejudicial to the Hellenic Republic in the present financial situation, and it constitutes an absolute financial surprise. |
| --- | --- |

By the first ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic contends that the imposition of corrections in 2013 after more than four years’ inaction on the part of the Commission regarding deficiencies in the control system, which relate to the financial years 2006 and 2007 and had already been identified in 2008, infringes the general principle of legal certainty and the general principles requiring action to be taken within a reasonable time and the Commission to act timeously, on account of the unjustifiable and excessive length of the procedure which is prejudicial to the Hellenic Republic in the present financial situation, and it constitutes an absolute financial surprise.

| | By the second ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic submits that the Commission, erring as to the facts and stating totally inadequate reasons, reached the conclusion that two key controls were not carried out and proposed a correction amounting to a flat rate of 10 %, and that the rate could not in any event exceed the rate of 5 % which is imposed in cases where deficiencies in key controls are found. |
| --- | --- |

By the second ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic submits that the Commission, erring as to the facts and stating totally inadequate reasons, reached the conclusion that two key controls were not carried out and proposed a correction amounting to a flat rate of 10 %, and that the rate could not in any event exceed the rate of 5 % which is imposed in cases where deficiencies in key controls are found.

| | By the third ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the POSEI — Small Aegean Islands sector, the Hellenic Republic submits that the Commission decision lacks a specific statement of reasons so as to justify the correction imposed. |
| --- | --- |

By the third ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the POSEI — Small Aegean Islands sector, the Hellenic Republic submits that the Commission decision lacks a specific statement of reasons so as to justify the correction imposed.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/18

---

Action brought on 21 October 2013 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)

(Case T-555/13)

2013/C 377/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MHCS (Epernay, France) (represented by: P. Boutron, N. Moya Fernández and L.-É. Balleydier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España, SA (La Guardia, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 August 2013 given in Case R 2588/2011-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 August 2013 given in Case R 2588/2011-2;

| — | Grant Community trade mark application No 8 837 379 for the word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods in Class 33; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant Community trade mark application No 8 837 379 for the word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods in Class 33;

| — | Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those incurred during the proceedings before the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those incurred during the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 837 379

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 237 875 of the figurative mark for ‘all kinds of wine except sparkling wine and sherry’ in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 95 020 of the figurative mark for ‘any class of wines except sparkling wine and sherry wine’ in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 1 508 304 of the word mark ‘IMPERIAL’ for ‘wines’ in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) CTMR and Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/18

---

Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell'Urbe v Commission

(Case T-579/13)

2013/C 377/42

Language of the Procedure: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell’Urbe SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Cianciullo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the tender of the successful tenderer, Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l., fails to comply with the lex specialis governing tenders and in particular with point 5.2 of the specifications under which the tenders should have been drawn up in accordance ‘with European and national law concerning the transfer of undertakings and in particular with Directive 2001/23/EC and with the national measures implementing that directive’ with regard in particular to the ‘provisions for the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of a change of employer as a result of the legal transfer of an undertaking’; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the tender of the successful tenderer, Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l., fails to comply with the lex specialis governing tenders and in particular with point 5.2 of the specifications under which the tenders should have been drawn up in accordance ‘with European and national law concerning the transfer of undertakings and in particular with Directive 2001/23/EC and with the national measures implementing that directive’ with regard in particular to the ‘provisions for the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of a change of employer as a result of the legal transfer of an undertaking’;

| — | find that the tender submitted by the Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l. objectively infringes the principles of equal treatment and of competition, and is therefore contrary to the provisions contained in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 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, Recital 42 of the preamble to which states that ‘[t]he purpose of the procedures for the award of contracts is to satisfy the needs of the institutions on the best possible terms while guaranteeing equal access to public contracts and complying with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination’; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the tender submitted by the Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l. objectively infringes the principles of equal treatment and of competition, and is therefore contrary to the provisions contained in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 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, Recital 42 of the preamble to which states that ‘[t]he purpose of the procedures for the award of contracts is to satisfy the needs of the institutions on the best possible terms while guaranteeing equal access to public contracts and complying with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination’;

| — | consequently, annul the decision awarding the contract to Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l. and set aside any contract that may have been concluded with that company; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the decision awarding the contract to Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l. and set aside any contract that may have been concluded with that company;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings;

| — | order the European Commission to pay compensation for harm suffered. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay compensation for harm suffered.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the measure of the Representation of the European Commission in Italy, Commission ref. ARES (2013) 2936015, of 27 August 2013, concerning ‘PO/2013-11-SEC/ROM — Interinstitutional call for tenders concerning security guard and reception services at the European Union Houses in Rome and Milan, Italy — Lot 1: European Commission Representation and European Parliament Information Office’, which rejected the applicant’s tender.

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging breach of the lex specialis governing tenders and infringement of the principle of equal treatment.






  — | the applicant claims in that regard that the lex specialis provided that the successful tenderer of the service should have carried out the switch between contractors by employing the security guards previously employed by the outgoing contractor company on the same site. The successful tenderer however refused to carry out the switch between contractors; and that |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging breach of the lex specialis governing tenders and infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

—

the applicant claims in that regard that the lex specialis provided that the successful tenderer of the service should have carried out the switch between contractors by employing the security guards previously employed by the outgoing contractor company on the same site. The successful tenderer however refused to carry out the switch between contractors; and that

| — | by implicit confirmation of the award, the defendant infringed the principle of the equal treatment that calls for the drawing up and impartial application of unequivocal and uniform call for tender rules for all tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

—

by implicit confirmation of the award, the defendant infringed the principle of the equal treatment that calls for the drawing up and impartial application of unequivocal and uniform call for tender rules for all tenderers.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging breach of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012.






  — | the applicant claims in that regard infringement of the principle, enshrined in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC, according to which competitors are to be treated equally, and of the principles, reflected in that directive, according to which the interests of transparency and competition, as well as the relevant employment protection rules, are to be respected; and that |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging breach of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012.

—

the applicant claims in that regard infringement of the principle, enshrined in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC, according to which competitors are to be treated equally, and of the principles, reflected in that directive, according to which the interests of transparency and competition, as well as the relevant employment protection rules, are to be respected; and that

| — | the successful tenderer could submit an economically advantageous tender only by not complying with the rules of the lex specialis governing tenders, of collective bargaining and of the European and national employment protection principles, with which the other tenderers complied. |
| --- | --- |

—

the successful tenderer could submit an economically advantageous tender only by not complying with the rules of the lex specialis governing tenders, of collective bargaining and of the European and national employment protection principles, with which the other tenderers complied.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/19

---

Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts v Commission

(Case T-583/13)

2013/C 377/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts (Hampshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision contained in the letter of the European Commission dated 2 September 2013, confirmed by the letter dated 18 October 2013, refusing eligibility for a reward for a voluntary pediatric investigation plan under Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision contained in the letter of the European Commission dated 2 September 2013, confirmed by the letter dated 18 October 2013, refusing eligibility for a reward for a voluntary pediatric investigation plan under Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 (1); and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear 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 the contested decision is vitiated by fundamental errors in law in the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by fundamental errors in law in the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of legal certainty.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2006 L 378, p. 1)

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/20

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Gomes Moreira v ECDC

(Case F-80/11) (1)

(Civil Service - Temporary staff - Anticipated termination of a fixed-term contract - Breach of trust - Disciplinary misconduct)

2013/C 377/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Joaquim Paulo Gomes Moreira (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: A. Ammon, Agent, initially, and subsequently R. Trott, Agent, D. Waelbroek and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract for disciplinary reasons and for payment of a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 11 October 2010 in so far as it suspended the applicant from his duties; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 11 October 2010 in so far as it suspended the applicant from his duties;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 30.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/20

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Bartha v Commission

(Case F-104/11) (1)

(Civil Service - Open competition EPSO/AD/56/06 - Reopening of the competition procedure - Measures of execution of the judgment in Case F-50/08)

2013/C 377/45

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Gabór Bartha (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Homoki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, B. Bottka, A, Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of EPSO decision to reopen the procedure for open competition EPSO/AD/56/06 and the decision of the selection board relating to the results of competition EPSO/AD/56/06 — Administrator grade A5 with Hungarian citizenship and payment of compensation

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Mr Bartha to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2013, p. 68.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/20

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors

(Case F-14/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2011 promotion procedure - Reference multiplier rates)

2013/C 377/46

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented initially by: J.-M. Stenier and B. Schäfer, and subsequently by: B. Schäfer and Í. Ni Riágan Düro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion procedure

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 33.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/21

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-63/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Compliance with a judgment - Costs - Reimbursement of costs - Reimbursement of the sum paid by way of recoverable costs following a judgment annulling in part the judgment by which the applicant was ordered to pay those costs)

2013/C 377/47

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, Agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul the letters by which the defendant refuses to reimburse, following the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-37/10 P De Nicola v EIB, which annulled in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-55/08 De Nicola v EIB, the EUR 6 000 which the applicant had paid to the defendant by way of recoverable costs following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-55/08 DEP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of 4 and 25 May 2012 of the European Investment Bank; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of 4 and 25 May 2012 of the European Investment Bank;

| 2. | Orders the European Investment bank to pay Mr De Nicola the sum of EUR 6 000, with default interest as from 29 April 2012. The default interest rate must be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable over the period concerned, increased by two points; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Investment bank to pay Mr De Nicola the sum of EUR 6 000, with default interest as from 29 April 2012. The default interest rate must be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable over the period concerned, increased by two points;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 4. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012, p. 16.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/21

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Doyle v Europol

(Case F-103/12) (1)

(Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)

2013/C 377/48

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Margaret Doyle (Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands) (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to him by the decision annulled by that judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Ms Doyle the sum of EUR 3 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Ms Doyle the sum of EUR 3 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol;

| 2. | Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mrs Doyle. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mrs Doyle.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.2013, p. 70.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/21

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Hanschmann v Europol

(Case F-104/12) (1)

(Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)

2013/C 377/49

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Ingo Hanschmann (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to him by the decision annulled by that judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Mr Hanschmann the sum of EUR 13 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Mr Hanschmann the sum of EUR 13 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol;

| 2. | Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Hanschmann. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Hanschmann.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.2013, p. 70.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/22

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Knöll v Europol

(Case F-105/12) (1)

(Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to grant an indeterminate contract - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment)

2013/C 377/50

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision, taken to comply with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-44/09 Knöll v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a fixed sum to compensate her for the harm caused to her by the decision annulled by that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted to Ms Knöll the sum of EUR 20 000 in order to comply with the Tribunal’s judgment of 29 June 2010 in Case F-44/09 Knöll v Europol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted to Ms Knöll the sum of EUR 20 000 in order to comply with the Tribunal’s judgment of 29 June 2010 in Case F-44/09 Knöll v Europol;

| 2. | Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Knöll. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Knöll.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 70.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/22

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-132/11) (1)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility - None)

2013/C 377/51

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s request (i) to inform him in writing of the total number of working days of annual leave accrued in the years prior to 2005 and in the period from 2005 to 2010 to which he was entitled on the date on which he submitted his request and the number of days leave to which he would be entitled by the end of 2010; (ii) to take all those days leave; and (iii) to notify him of any grounds on which those request may be refused.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 23.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/23

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-19/12) (1)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility - None)

2013/C 377/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s note containing one or more decisions concerning the applicant’s administrative status and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 34.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/23

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — CA v Commission

(Case F-60/12) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Application instituting proceedings - Formal requirements - Statement of the grounds on which the application is based - Action manifestly inadmissible)

2013/C 377/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Guerrieri Ciaceri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser)

Re:

The application to annul the defendant’s decision not to award the applicant 6 promotion points in respect of the 2011 promotion year and an application for the award of the points necessary for her promotion to grade AST 2 with retroactive effect.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | CA is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CA is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012, p. 34.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/23

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-94/12)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 377/54

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 on account of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of breach of confidentiality of medical information.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/23

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Palleschi v Commission

(Case F-123/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Contract staff for auxiliary tasks - Article 3c of the CEOS - Application for reclassification of the contract as a temporary contract for an indefinite period - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2013/C 377/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria-Pia Palleschi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s request that her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks be reclassified as a temporary contract for an indefinite period

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

| 2. | Ms Palleschi shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Palleschi shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012, p. 9.

---

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/24

---

Action brought on 2 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-65/13)

2013/C 377/56

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Mansullo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the claim for compensation of 20 June 2012 contained in the note of 20 June 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the claim for compensation of 20 June 2012 contained in the note of 20 June 2012;

| — | Annul the note of 27 August 2012 bearing, at the top right hand corner of the first of the three pages comprising the note, the reference ‘Ref.Ares (2012)1003126 — 27 August 2012’, which was received by the applicant on 9 October 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the note of 27 August 2012 bearing, at the top right hand corner of the first of the three pages comprising the note, the reference ‘Ref.Ares (2012)1003126 — 27 August 2012’, which was received by the applicant on 9 October 2012;

| — | In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 24 October 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 24 October 2012;

| — | In so far as necessary, annul the note of 11 February 2013, bearing the reference HR.D.2/MB/ac 170184, written in Italian, consisting of two sheet of paper typed on one side, received by the applicant on 22 March 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annul the note of 11 February 2013, bearing the reference HR.D.2/MB/ac 170184, written in Italian, consisting of two sheet of paper typed on one side, received by the applicant on 22 March 2013;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000, together with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation with effect from 21 June 2012 until actual payment of that sum; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000, together with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation with effect from 21 June 2012 until actual payment of that sum;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---