# Official Journal C 304/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.304.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 304 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5619 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.304.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 304

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5619 October 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 304/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 298, 12.10.2013 | 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 304/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 298, 12.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 304/02 | Case C-572/11: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria) — Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Right to deduct — Refusal — Tax mentioned on an invoice — Actual performance of a taxable transaction — None — Evidence — Principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations) | 2 |
| 2013/C 304/03 | Case C-586/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 — Regione Puglia v Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — ERDF — Decision reducing financial aid — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regional body — Act directly affecting that body — Inadmissibility) | 2 |
| 2013/C 304/04 | Case C-430/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău, Romania) — Elena Luca v Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Bacău (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Social security — Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 22 — Sickness insurance — Hospital treatment provided in another Member State — Prior authorisation — Compensation for the insured person) | 3 |
| 2013/C 304/05 | Case C-520/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 July 2013 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE v European Commission, EU Delegation to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU) (Appeals — Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance — Public procurement — Project for the enlargement of the European Turkish Business Centres Network — Decision not to award the project — Application for damages for the alleged losses — National decision — No involvement by European Union bodies) | 3 |
| 2013/C 304/06 | Case C-337/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága | 4 |
| 2013/C 304/07 | Case C-388/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 8 July 2013 — UPC Magyarország Kft. v Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság | 4 |
| 2013/C 304/08 | Case C-422/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree | 5 |
| 2013/C 304/09 | Case C-423/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 July 2013 — UAB Vilniaus energija v Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius | 5 |
| 2013/C 304/10 | Case C-435/13 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2013 by Erich Kastenholz against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-68/11 Erich Kastenholz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 5 |
| 2013/C 304/11 | Case C-439/13 P: Appeal brought on 5 August 2013 by Elitaliana SpA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo | 6 |
| 2013/C 304/12 | Case C-446/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances | 7 |
| 2013/C 304/13 | Case C-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament | 7 |
| 2013/C 304/14 | Case C-468/11: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 8 |
| 2013/C 304/15 | Case C-123/12: Order of the President of the Forth Chamber of the Court of 10 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu | 8 |
| 2013/C 304/16 | Case C-99/13: Order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgique) — Guy Kleynen v Conseil des ministres | 8 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 304/17 | Joined Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Melli Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Legitimate expectations — Review of the restrictive measures adopted — Error of assessment — Equal treatment — Legal basis — Essential procedural requirements — Proportionality) | 9 |
| 2013/C 304/18 | Case T-317/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — L v Parliament (Appeals — Staff cases — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision to dismiss — Obligation to state reasons — Loss of trust) | 9 |
| 2013/C 304/19 | Case T-493/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Persia International Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment) | 10 |
| 2013/C 304/20 | Case T-599/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark EUROCOOL — Earlier national figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a fair hearing) | 11 |
| 2013/C 304/21 | Joined Cases T-4/11 and T-5/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment) | 11 |
| 2013/C 304/22 | Case T-12/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iran Insurance v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Infringement of international law — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination) | 12 |
| 2013/C 304/23 | Case T-13/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Post Bank Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Infringement of international law — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination) | 13 |
| 2013/C 304/24 | Case T-24/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection) | 14 |
| 2013/C 304/25 | Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Inspection powers of the Commission — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Duty to state reasons) | 15 |
| 2013/C 304/26 | Case T-434/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality) | 16 |
| 2013/C 304/27 | Case T-465/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Globula v Commission (Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2003/55/EC — Obligation on natural gas undertakings to organise a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities — Decision of the Czech authorities granting the applicant a temporary exemption for its future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice — Commission decision ordering the Czech Republic to withdraw the exemption decision — Time at which Directive 2003/55 takes effect) | 16 |
| 2013/C 304/28 | Case T-483/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Sepro Europe v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance flurprimidol — Non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 — Accelerated assessment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons) | 17 |
| 2013/C 304/29 | Case T-6/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Godrej Industries and VVF v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Adjustment for currency conversion claimed — Burden of proof — Injury — Definitive anti-dumping duty) | 17 |
| 2013/C 304/30 | Joined Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bateni v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment) | 18 |
| 2013/C 304/31 | Case T-57/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Good Luck Shipping v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment) | 18 |
| 2013/C 304/32 | Case T-110/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Time-limit for amendment of the form of order sought — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment) | 19 |
| 2013/C 304/33 | Case T-349/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark REVARO — Earlier international word mark RECARO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 19 |
| 2013/C 304/34 | Case T-414/13: Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE) | 20 |
| 2013/C 304/35 | Case T-419/13: Action brought on 14 August 2013 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission | 20 |
| 2013/C 304/36 | Case T-426/13: Action brought on 14 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA) | 21 |
| 2013/C 304/37 | Case T-435/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Triarii v Commission | 21 |
| 2013/C 304/38 | Case T-448/13: Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté Prestige International (essence) | 22 |
| 2013/C 304/39 | Case T-449/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT) | 22 |
| 2013/C 304/40 | Case T-450/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA) | 23 |
| 2013/C 304/41 | Case T-461/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission | 23 |
| 2013/C 304/42 | Case T-462/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission | 24 |
| 2013/C 304/43 | Case T-463/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission | 25 |
| 2013/C 304/44 | Case T-464/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Retegal v Commission | 25 |
| 2013/C 304/45 | Case T-465/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission | 26 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 304/02

Case C-572/11: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria) — Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Right to deduct — Refusal — Tax mentioned on an invoice — Actual performance of a taxable transaction — None — Evidence — Principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations)

2

2013/C 304/03

Case C-586/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 — Regione Puglia v Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — ERDF — Decision reducing financial aid — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regional body — Act directly affecting that body — Inadmissibility)

2

2013/C 304/04

Case C-430/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău, Romania) — Elena Luca v Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Bacău (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Social security — Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 22 — Sickness insurance — Hospital treatment provided in another Member State — Prior authorisation — Compensation for the insured person)

3

2013/C 304/05

Case C-520/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 July 2013 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE v European Commission, EU Delegation to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU) (Appeals — Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance — Public procurement — Project for the enlargement of the European Turkish Business Centres Network — Decision not to award the project — Application for damages for the alleged losses — National decision — No involvement by European Union bodies)

3

2013/C 304/06

Case C-337/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

4

2013/C 304/07

Case C-388/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 8 July 2013 — UPC Magyarország Kft. v Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

4

2013/C 304/08

Case C-422/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree

5

2013/C 304/09

Case C-423/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 July 2013 — UAB Vilniaus energija v Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius

5

2013/C 304/10

Case C-435/13 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2013 by Erich Kastenholz against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-68/11 Erich Kastenholz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

5

2013/C 304/11

Case C-439/13 P: Appeal brought on 5 August 2013 by Elitaliana SpA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo

6

2013/C 304/12

Case C-446/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

7

2013/C 304/13

Case C-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament

7

2013/C 304/14

Case C-468/11: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

8

2013/C 304/15

Case C-123/12: Order of the President of the Forth Chamber of the Court of 10 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu

8

2013/C 304/16

Case C-99/13: Order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgique) — Guy Kleynen v Conseil des ministres

8

General Court

2013/C 304/17

Joined Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Melli Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Legitimate expectations — Review of the restrictive measures adopted — Error of assessment — Equal treatment — Legal basis — Essential procedural requirements — Proportionality)

9

2013/C 304/18

Case T-317/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — L v Parliament (Appeals — Staff cases — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision to dismiss — Obligation to state reasons — Loss of trust)

9

2013/C 304/19

Case T-493/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Persia International Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

10

2013/C 304/20

Case T-599/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark EUROCOOL — Earlier national figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a fair hearing)

11

2013/C 304/21

Joined Cases T-4/11 and T-5/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

11

2013/C 304/22

Case T-12/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iran Insurance v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Infringement of international law — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination)

12

2013/C 304/23

Case T-13/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Post Bank Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Infringement of international law — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination)

13

2013/C 304/24

Case T-24/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

14

2013/C 304/25

Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Inspection powers of the Commission — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Duty to state reasons)

15

2013/C 304/26

Case T-434/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality)

16

2013/C 304/27

Case T-465/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Globula v Commission (Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2003/55/EC — Obligation on natural gas undertakings to organise a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities — Decision of the Czech authorities granting the applicant a temporary exemption for its future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice — Commission decision ordering the Czech Republic to withdraw the exemption decision — Time at which Directive 2003/55 takes effect)

16

2013/C 304/28

Case T-483/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Sepro Europe v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance flurprimidol — Non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 — Accelerated assessment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

17

2013/C 304/29

Case T-6/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Godrej Industries and VVF v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Adjustment for currency conversion claimed — Burden of proof — Injury — Definitive anti-dumping duty)

17

2013/C 304/30

Joined Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bateni v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)

18

2013/C 304/31

Case T-57/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Good Luck Shipping v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

18

2013/C 304/32

Case T-110/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Time-limit for amendment of the form of order sought — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

19

2013/C 304/33

Case T-349/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark REVARO — Earlier international word mark RECARO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

19

2013/C 304/34

Case T-414/13: Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)

20

2013/C 304/35

Case T-419/13: Action brought on 14 August 2013 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission

20

2013/C 304/36

Case T-426/13: Action brought on 14 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

21

2013/C 304/37

Case T-435/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Triarii v Commission

21

2013/C 304/38

Case T-448/13: Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté Prestige International (essence)

22

2013/C 304/39

Case T-449/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)

22

2013/C 304/40

Case T-450/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)

23

2013/C 304/41

Case T-461/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

23

2013/C 304/42

Case T-462/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

24

2013/C 304/43

Case T-463/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

25

2013/C 304/44

Case T-464/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Retegal v Commission

25

2013/C 304/45

Case T-465/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission

26

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/1

---

2013/C 304/01

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

OJ C 298, 12.10.2013

Past publications

OJ C 291, 5.10.2013

OJ C 284, 28.9.2013

OJ C 274, 21.9.2013

OJ C 260, 7.9.2013

OJ C 252, 31.8.2013

OJ C 245, 24.8.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/2

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria) — Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-572/11) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Right to deduct - Refusal - Tax mentioned on an invoice - Actual performance of a taxable transaction - None - Evidence - Principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations)

2013/C 304/02

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Interpretation of Article 203 in conjunction with Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT on the part of the recipient of supplies of services on the ground that there is no evidence of actual supplies in the light of the invoices — Verification of those invoices in the course of a fiscal audit of the supplier not having given rise to any rectification of the VAT due — Principle of fiscal neutrality

Operative part of the order

Article 168(a) and Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as not precluding the recipient of an invoice from being refused the right to deduct VAT mentioned on that invoice where the transactions to which the invoice relates have not actually been performed, even if the risk of any loss in tax revenue has been eliminated on the ground that the issuer of that invoice has paid the VAT mentioned thereon. It is for the referring court to carry out, in accordance with the national rules relating to evidence, an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the dispute before it in order to determine whether the transactions to which the invoices at issue in the main proceedings relate were actually carried out.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/2

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 — Regione Puglia v Italian Republic, European Commission

(Case C-586/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - ERDF - Decision reducing financial aid - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regional body - Act directly affecting that body - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 304/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Regione Puglia (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission (represented by: L. Prete and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2011 in Case T-84/10 Regione Puglia v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment in part of Decision C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009 concerning the reduction in the financial aid from the European Regional Development Fund granted under Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000 approving the operational programme POR Puglia for the period from 2000 to 2006, under objective No 1 — Absence of oral procedure — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Not directly affected — Inadmissibility — Insufficient reasons

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The Regione Puglia shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Regione Puglia shall pay the costs.

| 3. | The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău, Romania) — Elena Luca v Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Bacău

(Case C-430/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Social security - Freedom to provide services - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 22 - Sickness insurance - Hospital treatment provided in another Member State - Prior authorisation - Compensation for the insured person)

2013/C 304/04

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău, Romania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elena Luca

Defendant: Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Bacău

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Bacău — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU and Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (English Special Edition, Series I, 1971(II), pp. 416 to 463), as amended — National legislation under which prior authorisation is required in order to obtain full reimbursement of expenses incurred in respect of medical treatment abroad — Determination in the absence of prior authorisation, of expenditure incurred in another Member State determined in accordance with the criteria of the State of affiliation

Operative part of the order

Article 49 EC and Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, do not, in principle, preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the entitlement to full reimbursement of expenses incurred in respect of hospital treatment provided in another Member State subject to obtaining prior authorisation. On the other hand, those provisions preclude such legislation which is interpreted as excluding, in all cases, full reimbursement by the competent institution for hospital treatment given without prior authorisation.

Where a refusal to grant reimbursement, because of the absence of prior authorisation alone, of hospital treatment provided in another Member State and paid for by the insured person is, having regard to the circumstances of the case, unfounded, that person is entitled to reimbursement for that treatment by the competent institution up to the amount determined by the legislation of that Member State. If that amount is less than that which would have resulted from application of the legislation in force in the Member State of residence if hospital treatment had been provided there, additional reimbursement corresponding to the difference between those two amounts must in addition be made by the competent institution, up to the amount of the expenditure actually incurred.

Where a refusal to grant reimbursement is well-founded, the insured person is entitled, under Article 49 EC, to a reimbursement of hospital treatment only within the limits of cover guaranteed by the health insurance system to which that person is affiliated.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 July 2013 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE v European Commission, EU Delegation to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU)

(Case C-520/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance - Public procurement - Project for the enlargement of the European Turkish Business Centres Network - Decision not to award the project - Application for damages for the alleged losses - National decision - No involvement by European Union bodies)

2013/C 304/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE (represented by: A. Krystallidis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents), EU Delegation to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2012 in Case T-369/11 Diadikasia Symbouloi Epicheiriseon AE v European Commission, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU) and Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, by which the General Court dismissed an application for damages seeking compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following a decision by the Delegation of the European Union to Turkey not to award the applicant the contract to carry out the project ‘Enlargement of the European Turkish Business Centers Network to Sivas, Antakya, Batman and Van’ (EuropeAid/128621/D/SER/TR) — Inadmissibility — Lack of jurisdiction

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-337/13)

2013/C 304/06

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Paragraph 77(1) and (2) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 2007. évi CXXVII. törvény (Law CXXVII of 2007 on value added tax), in force until 31 December 2010 consistent with the provisions of Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘VAT Directive’); does the national VAT law cover all the cases of possible reduction of the taxable amount provided for in the VAT Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Paragraph 77(1) and (2) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 2007. évi CXXVII. törvény (Law CXXVII of 2007 on value added tax), in force until 31 December 2010 consistent with the provisions of Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘VAT Directive’); does the national VAT law cover all the cases of possible reduction of the taxable amount provided for in the VAT Directive?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is no, is the taxable person entitled, in the absence of national legislation, to reduce the taxable amount, on the basis of the principles of tax neutrality and proportionality, and in the light of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, where it receives no consideration on completion of a transaction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is no, is the taxable person entitled, in the absence of national legislation, to reduce the taxable amount, on the basis of the principles of tax neutrality and proportionality, and in the light of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, where it receives no consideration on completion of a transaction?

| 3. | If Article 90(1) has direct effect, under what circumstances can [the taxable person] reduce the taxable amount? Is it sufficient to issue an amending invoice and send it to the purchaser or is it necessary, in addition, to demonstrate that, in fact, property in or possession of the goods has been recovered? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Article 90(1) has direct effect, under what circumstances can [the taxable person] reduce the taxable amount? Is it sufficient to issue an amending invoice and send it to the purchaser or is it necessary, in addition, to demonstrate that, in fact, property in or possession of the goods has been recovered?

| 4. | If the answer to the third question is no, is it obligatory under Community law to compensate the taxable person for the damage arising from the fact that the Member State did not fulfil its obligations as to harmonisation and, as a result, it was not possible for the taxable person to reduce its taxable amount. |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the third question is no, is it obligatory under Community law to compensate the taxable person for the damage arising from the fact that the Member State did not fulfil its obligations as to harmonisation and, as a result, it was not possible for the taxable person to reduce its taxable amount.

| 5. | May Article 90(2) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of total or partial non-payment, the Member States have the possibility of not applying a reduction in the taxable amount. If so, is an express prohibition in the Member State’s legislation necessary or does the absence of any rule have the same legal effect. |
| --- | --- |

5.

May Article 90(2) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of total or partial non-payment, the Member States have the possibility of not applying a reduction in the taxable amount. If so, is an express prohibition in the Member State’s legislation necessary or does the absence of any rule have the same legal effect.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 8 July 2013 — UPC Magyarország Kft. v Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

(Case C-388/13)

2013/C 304/07

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UPC Magyarország kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1) ..., to be interpreted as precluding, in respect of misleading commercial practices within the meaning of Article 5(4) of that directive, a separate examination of the criteria of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1) ..., to be interpreted as precluding, in respect of misleading commercial practices within the meaning of Article 5(4) of that directive, a separate examination of the criteria of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?

| 2. | May a communication of false information to a single consumer be regarded as a commercial practice within the meaning of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a communication of false information to a single consumer be regarded as a commercial practice within the meaning of that directive?

---

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

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree

(Case C-422/13)

2013/C 304/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Defendant: Uta Wree

Question referred

Is there also an agricultural area within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) of 19 January 2009 if that area, although also used for agricultural purposes (grazing for sheep farming purposes), forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 July 2013 — UAB ‘Vilniaus energija’ v Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius

(Case C-423/13)

2013/C 304/09

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: UAB ‘Vilniaus energija’

Defendant: Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius

Question referred

Must Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and/or Directive 2004/22/EC (1) be interpreted as prohibiting a national regulation and practice under which a hot-water meter which satisfies all of the requirements of Directive 2004/22/EC and is connected to a remote (telemetric) data-transmission device is regarded as being a measuring system and by reason of that fact that hot-water meter cannot be used as intended until a metrological verification has been carried out on that meter and that remote (telemetric) data-transmission device as together constituting a measuring system?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on measuring instruments (OJ L 135, p. 1).

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/5

---

Appeal brought on 2 August 2013 by Erich Kastenholz against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-68/11 Erich Kastenholz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-435/13 P)

2013/C 304/10

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Erich Kastenholz (represented by: L. Acker, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court;

| — | uphold his application for annulment of the contested decision, or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold his application for annulment of the contested decision, or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation to pay the applicant’s costs incured at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation to pay the applicant’s costs incured at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

| — | Infringement of Article 5(1)(a) together with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 (1)

  This infringement consists of two parts:






  — | failure to draw a distinction between the criteria of novelty and individual character; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5(1)(a) together with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 (1)

This infringement consists of two parts:

—

failure to draw a distinction between the criteria of novelty and individual character;

| — | inadmissible consideration of the colour of the design in assessing the novelty due to the registration made in black and white. |
| --- | --- |

—

inadmissible consideration of the colour of the design in assessing the novelty due to the registration made in black and white.

| — | Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) together with Article 2 of Regulation No 6/2002
  This infringement consists of three parts:






  — | inadequate determination of the similarities and differences of the conflicting designs; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) together with Article 2 of Regulation No 6/2002

This infringement consists of three parts:

—

inadequate determination of the similarities and differences of the conflicting designs;

| — | inadequate weighting of the matching characteristics and of the differing characteristics; |
| --- | --- |

—

inadequate weighting of the matching characteristics and of the differing characteristics;

| — | inadequate reasoning of the question of individual character of the contested Community design. |
| --- | --- |

—

inadequate reasoning of the question of individual character of the contested Community design.

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002 and of the obligation of inquiry under the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002
  This infringement consists of the following four parts:






  — | incorrect finding of the General Court that an expert’s report submitted during the administrative procedure could be disregarded; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002 and of the obligation of inquiry under the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002

This infringement consists of the following four parts:

—

incorrect finding of the General Court that an expert’s report submitted during the administrative procedure could be disregarded;

| — | inadequate consideration of the expert’s report and the statement of facts to the expert’s report in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

inadequate consideration of the expert’s report and the statement of facts to the expert’s report in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court;

| — | failure to properly provide a statement of reasons in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court in relation to the infringement of national copyright, in particular insufficient determination of the scope of national copyright protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to properly provide a statement of reasons in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court in relation to the infringement of national copyright, in particular insufficient determination of the scope of national copyright protection;

| — | inadequate finding by the Board of Appeal and by the General Court that it was for the applicant to explain the nature of the relevant national copyright protection in the context of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002, and at the same time misinterpretation of the scope of the duties of the Board of Appeal and of the Office for Harmonisation as regards the obligation to clarify of their own motion facts and the legal situation pursuant to the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

inadequate finding by the Board of Appeal and by the General Court that it was for the applicant to explain the nature of the relevant national copyright protection in the context of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002, and at the same time misinterpretation of the scope of the duties of the Board of Appeal and of the Office for Harmonisation as regards the obligation to clarify of their own motion facts and the legal situation pursuant to the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/6

---

Appeal brought on 5 August 2013 by Elitaliana SpA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-439/13 P)

2013/C 304/11

Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Elitaliana SpA (represented by: R. Colagrande, avvocato)

Other party to the procedure: Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside in its entirety the order [of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12 Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo;] |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in its entirety the order [of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12 Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo;]

| — | Consequently, if the state of the proceedings so permits, issue a final decision upholding the application at first instance seeking (a) the annulment of the measures adopted by Eulex — the content and date of which are unknown to the applicant — which resulted in the award of the contract in the tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK — Helicopter Support to the EULEX mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11)’ to Starlite Aviation Operations, notified by Eulex by letter of 29 March 2012, and all preliminary, consequential and connected measures, in particular, if necessary, Note 2012-DAS-0392 of 17 April 2012, by which Eulex refused to grant the applicant access to the tendering documents requested on 2 April 2012; (b) an order directing Eulex to make good the loss suffered by applicant (by ordering specific performance or payment of a commensurate amount in compensation) as set out at paragraphs 37 et seq. of the application made to the General Court; (c) an order directing Eulex to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, if the state of the proceedings so permits, issue a final decision upholding the application at first instance seeking (a) the annulment of the measures adopted by Eulex — the content and date of which are unknown to the applicant — which resulted in the award of the contract in the tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK — Helicopter Support to the EULEX mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11)’ to Starlite Aviation Operations, notified by Eulex by letter of 29 March 2012, and all preliminary, consequential and connected measures, in particular, if necessary, Note 2012-DAS-0392 of 17 April 2012, by which Eulex refused to grant the applicant access to the tendering documents requested on 2 April 2012; (b) an order directing Eulex to make good the loss suffered by applicant (by ordering specific performance or payment of a commensurate amount in compensation) as set out at paragraphs 37 et seq. of the application made to the General Court; (c) an order directing Eulex to pay the costs;

| — | In the alternative, as a result of such annulment, if the state of the proceedings so permits, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, as a result of such annulment, if the state of the proceedings so permits, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by failing to find that Eulex is a body of the European Union for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU and by equating Eulex to the delegations. Further, the General Court should have recognised the existence of an excusable error on the substance.

Those errors of law resulted in an infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection which is essential to ensure the full protection of the rights of the defence and, by corollary, the more general principle of equality.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

(Case C-446/13)

2013/C 304/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Fonderie 2A

Respondent: Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

Question referred

Do the provisions of the Sixth Directive [77/388/EEC] (1) for defining the place of an intra-Community supply mean that the supply of goods by a company to a customer in another country of the European Union, after the goods have, on the vendor’s behalf, undergone processing at the place of business of another company in the country of the customer is a supply between the country of the vendor and the country of the final recipient or a supply within the territory of the country of the final recipient, from the place of business of the processor?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/7

---

Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament

(Case C-447/13 P)

2013/C 304/13

Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Riccardo Nencini (represented by: M. Chiti, avvocato)

Other party to the procedure: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside — subject, where necessary, to verification of the invalidity/illegality of Article 85b of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (1) and Article 73a of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (2) — the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2013 in Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10 Nencini v European Parliament and, by varying that judgment to the effect that the pleas in law raised before the General Court are upheld, declare that the measures contested at first instance are illegal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside — subject, where necessary, to verification of the invalidity/illegality of Article 85b of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (1) and Article 73a of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (2) — the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2013 in Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10 Nencini v European Parliament and, by varying that judgment to the effect that the pleas in law raised before the General Court are upheld, declare that the measures contested at first instance are illegal;

| — | In the alternative, in the unlikely event that the order directing Mr Nencini to repay the contested amount is confirmed, recalculate — by setting aside and varying the judgment under appeal — that amount in an equitable manner or refer the documents back to the General Secretariat of the European Parliament for an equitable recalculation of the contested figure; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, in the unlikely event that the order directing Mr Nencini to repay the contested amount is confirmed, recalculate — by setting aside and varying the judgment under appeal — that amount in an equitable manner or refer the documents back to the General Secretariat of the European Parliament for an equitable recalculation of the contested figure;

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it concerns costs and, consequently, vary it in such a way as to order the Parliament to pay the costs in Case T-431/10, ordering it also to pay the costs in Case T-560/10 or in some way arranging compensation for those costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it concerns costs and, consequently, vary it in such a way as to order the Parliament to pay the costs in Case T-431/10, ordering it also to pay the costs in Case T-560/10 or in some way arranging compensation for those costs;

| — | In any event, order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Mr Nencini first alleges infringement of the rules governing time-bars and breach of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and reasonableness. The General Court rejected Mr Nencini’s claims, finding that time for the purposes of initiating recovery had started to run with notification of the recovery decision and the debit note, that is to say, 11 years after Mr Nencini had ceased to be a Member of the European Parliament.

Secondly, Mr Nencini claims that the General Court erred in law in relation to the pleas alleging breach of the adversarial principle and the principle of effective judicial protection, as some of the factors on which the decision was based were different from those which had previously been the subject of dispute.

Thirdly, Mr Nencini alleges misapplication of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members (‘the PEAM rules’), both as regards the contested amounts by way of reimbursement of travel expenses and as regards the contested amounts by way of secretarial allowance. Specifically, Mr Nencini argues that there was an error of interpretation as regards the concept of ‘domicile’, which cannot be equated with the concept of formal ‘residence’; he also argues that, in several respects, there had been no unlawful conduct and that it was contradictory to regard failure to indicate the names of all the beneficiaries of the secretarial allowance merely as a formal irregularity, but nonetheless to maintain that, in the light of the confusing rules which existed at the time, there was no way of making good that irregularity.

Fourthly, Mr Nencini alleges breach of the principle of proportionality in the calculation of the amount to be recovered. He argues that demanding payment of the entire sum is perverse.

Lastly, Mr Nencini complains that there has been error in calculating the costs that he owes in relation to the proceedings. The costs incurred for contesting the first decision — a decision which was subsequently withdrawn — arose because of improper conduct on the part of the other party, which had acknowledged this, however, by arranging — after notice of the first action had been served — for the decision to be replaced with a decision in Italian.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/8

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-468/11) (1)

2013/C 304/14

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/8

---

Order of the President of the Forth Chamber of the Court of 10 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu

(Case C-123/12) (1)

2013/C 304/15

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/8

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgique) — Guy Kleynen v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-99/13) (1)

2013/C 304/16

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

---

General Court

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Melli Iran v Council

(Joined Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Legitimate expectations - Review of the restrictive measures adopted - Error of assessment - Equal treatment - Legal basis - Essential procedural requirements - Proportionality)

2013/C 304/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Melli Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented: in Case T-35/10 by L. Defalque, and in Case T-7/11 initially by L. Defalque and S. Woog, and subsequently by L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: in Case T-35/10 by M. Bishop and R. Szostak, and in Case T-7/11 initially by M. Bishop and G. Marhic, and subsequently by M. Bishop and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and É. Ranaivoson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, subsequently by A. Robinson, and finally by A. Robinson and H. Walker, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister), and European Commission (represented: in Case T-35/10 by S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, and in Case T-7/11 by S. Boelaert, M. Konstantinidis and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 31); Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1); Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11); and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1); and, secondly, for annulment of any future regulation or decision in force as at the date of closure of the oral procedure which supplements or amends any of the contested measures

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11 for the purpose of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11 for the purpose of the judgment;

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

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Bank Melli Iran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Bank Melli Iran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — L v Parliament

(Case T-317/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Staff cases - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision to dismiss - Obligation to state reasons - Loss of trust)

2013/C 304/18

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: L (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: initially by A. Sèbe and V. Sviderskis and subsequently by A. Sèbe, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented: initially by S. Seyr, K. Zejdová and L. Mašalaitė-Chouteau, subsequently by S. Seyr, K. Zejdová and S. Milius, and finally by S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union [confidential], (2) seeking to have that judgment set aside

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union [confidential] in so far as it did not rule on the plea alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality, rejected the plea alleging factual inaccuracy and a manifest error of assessment and held that the appellant had not claimed that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union [confidential] in so far as it did not rule on the plea alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality, rejected the plea alleging factual inaccuracy and a manifest error of assessment and held that the appellant had not claimed that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the costs;

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

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Dismisses the action brought by Mr L before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case [confidential] as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action brought by Mr L before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case [confidential] as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating both to the first instance proceedings and the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating both to the first instance proceedings and the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

(2)  Confidential data omitted.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Persia International Bank v Council

(Case T-493/10) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

2013/C 304/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Persia International Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by S. Ashley and by S. Jeffrey and A. Irvine, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and, secondly, for a declaration that Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1), Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation No 961/2010 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012 are inapplicable to the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the following measures, in so far as they concern Persia International Bank plc:






  — | point 4 of Table B of 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 the following measures, in so far as they concern Persia International Bank plc:

—

point 4 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

| — | point 2 of Table B of the annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran; |
| --- | --- |

—

point 2 of Table B of the annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

| — | point 4 of Table I.B of the annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413; |
| --- | --- |

—

point 4 of Table I.B of the annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413;

| — | point 4 of Table B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

point 4 of Table B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007;

| — | Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413;

| — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

| — | point 4 of Table I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

point 4 of Table I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

| 2. | Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Persia International Bank until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Persia International Bank until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Persia International Bank; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Persia International Bank;

| 5. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)

(Case T-599/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark EUROCOOL - Earlier national figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to a fair hearing)

2013/C 304/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eurocool Logistik GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Secklehner and C. Ofner, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially R. Manea, subsequently K. Klüpfel, and then K. Klüpfel and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Peter Lenger (Weinheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Pfefferkorn, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Eurocool Logistik GmbH and Mr Peter Lenger

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010-1) in so far as it concerns the services, referred to in the trade mark application, of ‘development of software for the storage, commissioning and transport of chilled and frozen goods’ in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘services of a freight forwarding company’, in Class 39 of that agreement, covered by the earlier mark; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010-1) in so far as it concerns the services, referred to in the trade mark application, of ‘development of software for the storage, commissioning and transport of chilled and frozen goods’ in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘services of a freight forwarding company’, in Class 39 of that agreement, covered by the earlier mark;

| 2. | Rejects the opposition in so far as it concerns the services referred to in point 1; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the opposition in so far as it concerns the services referred to in point 1;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Eurocool Logistik GmbH, OHIM and Mr Peter Lenger each to bear their own respective costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Eurocool Logistik GmbH, OHIM and Mr Peter Lenger each to bear their own respective costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court;

| 5. | Orders OHIM to pay half of the costs incurred by Eurocool Logistik in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders OHIM to pay half of the costs incurred by Eurocool Logistik in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

(Joined Cases T-4/11 and T-5/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

2013/C 304/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A. Bordes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) a declaration that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) is inapplicable to the applicant; (ii) annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), and of all future regulations which might supplement or replace those regulations pending final judgment in the action, in so far as those acts concern the applicant; (iii) annulment of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), and of all future measures which might supplement or replace those measures pending final judgment in the action, in so far as those measures concern the applicant; and (iv) annulment of the decisions contained in the letters of 28 October 2010 and 5 December 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Export Development Bank of Iran:






  — | Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and subsequently by Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Export Development Bank of Iran:

—

Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and subsequently by Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011;

| — | Decision 2010/644; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision 2010/644;

| — | Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

| — | Decision 2011/783; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision 2011/783;

| — | Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011;

| — | Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

| 2. | Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Export Development Bank of Iran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as it concerns Export Development Bank of Iran; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Export Development Bank of Iran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as it concerns Export Development Bank of Iran;

| 3. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration that Decision 2010/413 is not applicable to Export Development Bank of Iran; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration that Decision 2010/413 is not applicable to Export Development Bank of Iran;

| 4. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 5. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Export Development Bank of Iran; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Export Development Bank of Iran;

| 6. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iran Insurance v Council

(Case T-12/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Infringement of international law - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination)

2013/C 304/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iran Insurance Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and G. Marhic, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment (i) of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant; (ii) of the decision in respect of the applicant ‘contained in’ a letter dated 28 October 2010; (iii) of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as they may affect the applicant’s situation; (iv) of the decision in respect of the applicant ‘contained in’ a letter dated 5 December 2011; (v) of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant; and (vi) of any future regulation or decision of the Council or of the Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action; and, secondly, for a declaration that the following are inapplicable to the applicant: Articles 12 and 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413; Articles 16(2) and 26 of Regulation No 961/2010; Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22); Articles 23(2) and 35 of Regulation No 267/2012; Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58); Article 1(11) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34); and Article 1(2) of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares the action inadmissible, in so far as it seeks the annulment of any future regulation or decision of the Council of the European Union or of the European Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares the action inadmissible, in so far as it seeks the annulment of any future regulation or decision of the Council of the European Union or of the European Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the decisions in respect of Iran Insurance Company ‘contained in’ the letters from the Council dated 28 October 2010 and 5 December 2011, or on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council, supported by the Commission, solely in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision regarding Iran Insurance Company ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council dated 28 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the decisions in respect of Iran Insurance Company ‘contained in’ the letters from the Council dated 28 October 2010 and 5 December 2011, or on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council, supported by the Commission, solely in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision regarding Iran Insurance Company ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council dated 28 October 2010;

| 3. | Annuls, in so far as they concern Iran Insurance Company, Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010; Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls, in so far as they concern Iran Insurance Company, Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010; Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

| 4. | Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Iran Insurance Company until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as Annex IX concerns Iran Insurance Company; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Iran Insurance Company until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as Annex IX concerns Iran Insurance Company;

| 5. | Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Iran Insurance Company; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Iran Insurance Company;

| 6. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Post Bank Iran v Council

(Case T-13/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Infringement of international law - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination)

2013/C 304/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Post Bank Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Erlbacher and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment (i) of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant; (ii) of the decision in respect of the applicant ‘contained in’ a letter received on 29 October 2010; (iii) of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as they may affect the applicant’s situation; (iv) of the decision in respect of the applicant ‘contained in’ a letter dated 5 December 2011; (v) of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant; and (vi) of any future regulation or decision of the Council or of the Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action; and, secondly, for a declaration that the following are inapplicable to the applicant: Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413; Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010; Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22); Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012; Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58); Article 1(11) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34); and Article 1(2) of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares the action inadmissible, in so far as it seeks the annulment of any future regulation or decision of the Council of the European Union or of the European Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares the action inadmissible, in so far as it seeks the annulment of any future regulation or decision of the Council of the European Union or of the European Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the decisions in respect of Post Bank Iran ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council received on 29 October 2010 and the letter from the Council dated 5 December 2011, or on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council, supported by the Commission, solely in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision regarding Post Bank Iran ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council received on 29 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the decisions in respect of Post Bank Iran ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council received on 29 October 2010 and the letter from the Council dated 5 December 2011, or on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council, supported by the Commission, solely in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision regarding Post Bank Iran ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council received on 29 October 2010;

| 3. | Annuls, in so far as they concern Post Bank Iran, Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010; Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls, in so far as they concern Post Bank Iran, Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010; Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

| 4. | Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Post Bank Iran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as Annex IX concerns Post Bank Iran; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Post Bank Iran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as Annex IX concerns Post Bank Iran;

| 5. | Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Post Bank Iran; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Post Bank Iran;

| 6. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

(Case T-24/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)

2013/C 304/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Erlbacher and M. Konstantinidis, and subsequently by A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) a declaration that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) is inapplicable to the applicant; (ii) annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), and of all future regulations which might supplement or replace those regulations pending final judgment in the action, in so far as those acts concern the applicant; (iii) annulment of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), and of all future measures which might supplement or replace those measures pending final judgment in the action, in so far as those measures concern the applicant; and (iv) annulment of the decisions contained in the letters of 28 October 2010 and 5 December 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Bank Refah Kargaran:






  — | Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and subsequently by Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Bank Refah Kargaran:

—

Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and subsequently by Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011;

| — | Decision 2010/644; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision 2010/644;

| — | Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

| — | Decision 2011/783; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision 2011/783;

| — | Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011;

| — | Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

| 2. | Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Bank Refah Kargaran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as it concerns Bank Refah Kargaran; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Bank Refah Kargaran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as it concerns Bank Refah Kargaran;

| 3. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration that Decision 2010/413 is not applicable to Bank Refah Kargaran; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration that Decision 2010/413 is not applicable to Bank Refah Kargaran;

| 4. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 5. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Bank Refah Kargaran; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Bank Refah Kargaran;

| 6. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Inspection powers of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 304/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany); DB Mobility Logistics AG (Berlin); DB Energie GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany); DB Netz AG (Frankfurt-am-Main); DB Schenker Rail GmbH (Mainz, Germany); DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG (Mainz); Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) (Bodenheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, O. Mross and J. Brückner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, N. von Lingen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially, in Cases T-289/11 and T-290/11, by: M. Muñoz Pérez, then, in Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11, by: S. Centeno Huerta, abogados del Estado); Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents); and EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: X.A. Lewis, M. Schneider and M. Moustakali, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decisions C(2011)1774 of 14 March 2011, C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011 ordering Deutsche Bahn AG and all its subsidiaries, to submit to inspections under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, DB Schenker Rail GmbH,; DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG and Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, DB Schenker Rail GmbH,; DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG and Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear their own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council

(Case T-434/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality)

2013/C 304/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented initially by S. Ashley and S. Gadhia, Solicitors, H. Hohmann, lawyer, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by S. Ashley, H. Hohmann, D. Wyatt, R. Blakeley, and by S. Jeffrey and A. Irvine, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Paasivirta and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Behzadi-Spencer, A. Robinson and C. Murrell, acting as Agents, and by J. Swift QC and R. Palmer, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65); secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26); thirdly, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71); fourthly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11); and, fifthly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as those acts concern Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as those acts concern Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank to bear three fifths of its own costs and to pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank to bear three fifths of its own costs and to pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 4. | Orders the Council to bear two fifths of its own costs and to pay two fifths of the costs incurred by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council to bear two fifths of its own costs and to pay two fifths of the costs incurred by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank;

| 5. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Globula v Commission

(Case T-465/11) (1)

(Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2003/55/EC - Obligation on natural gas undertakings to organise a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities - Decision of the Czech authorities granting the applicant a temporary exemption for its future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice - Commission decision ordering the Czech Republic to withdraw the exemption decision - Time at which Directive 2003/55 takes effect)

2013/C 304/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Globula a.s. (Hodonín, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Petite, D. Paemen, A. Tomtsis, D. Koláček and P. Zákoucký, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and T. Scharf, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4509 of 27 June 2011 on the exemption of an Underground Gas Storage Facility in Dambořice from the internal market rules on third party access.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision C(2011) 4509 of the Commission of 27 June 2011 on the exemption of an Underground Gas Storage Facility in Dambořice from the internal market rules on third party access; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision C(2011) 4509 of the Commission of 27 June 2011 on the exemption of an Underground Gas Storage Facility in Dambořice from the internal market rules on third party access;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Globula a.s.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Globula a.s.;

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

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Sepro Europe v Commission

(Case T-483/11) (1)

(Plant-protection products - Active substance flurprimidol - Non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 - Accelerated assessment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 304/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sepro Europe Ltd (Harrogate, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/328/EU of 1 June 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2011 L 153, p. 192)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sepro Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sepro Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Godrej Industries and VVF v Council

(Case T-6/12) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Adjustment for currency conversion claimed - Burden of proof - Injury - Definitive anti-dumping duty)

2013/C 304/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Godrej Industries Ltd (Mumbai, India), and VVF Ltd (Mumbai) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, with G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, (Hamburg, Germany), Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg) (represented by: V. Akritidis, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor); and European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Godrej Industries Ltd and VVF Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and also those incurred by Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Godrej Industries Ltd and VVF Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and also those incurred by Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bateni v Council

(Joined Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 304/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Naser Bateni (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle, M. Schlingmann and F. Lautenschlager, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, J.-P. Hix and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

Re:

In Case T-42/12, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as it included the applicant in the list set out 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 (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as it included the applicant in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and, in Case T-181/12, application for annulment of 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 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name has been maintained in the list of persons, entities and bodies whose assets have been frozen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Rules that, in Case T-42/12, there is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns Mr Naser Bateni; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rules that, in Case T-42/12, there is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns Mr Naser Bateni;

| 3. | Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it included Mr Bateni 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; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it included Mr Bateni 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;

| 4. | Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns Mr Bateni; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns Mr Bateni;

| 5. | Upholds the effects of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783, as regards Mr Bateni, since its entry into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Upholds the effects of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783, as regards Mr Bateni, since its entry into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

| 6. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Mr Bateni and to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Mr Bateni and to bear its own costs;

| 7. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

7.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

(Case T-57/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 304/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and B. Driessen, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of, first, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and, third, Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those provisions concern the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the following measures, in so far as they concern Good Luck Shipping LLC:






  — | Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the following measures, in so far as they concern Good Luck Shipping LLC:

—

Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

| — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

| — | Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Decision 2011/783 be maintained as regards Good Luck Shipping until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Decision 2011/783 be maintained as regards Good Luck Shipping until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Good Luck Shipping. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Good Luck Shipping.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council

(Case T-110/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Time-limit for amendment of the form of order sought - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 304/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Plaza García, V. Piessevaux and G. Ramos Ruano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

| 2. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007;

| 3. | Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction;

| 4. | Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction, from its entry into force, on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction, from its entry into force, on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

| 5. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction, 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 the costs incurred by Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction, in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO)

(Case T-349/12) (1)

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

2013/C 304/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rudolf Leiner GmbH (Sankt Pölten, Austria) (represented by: W. Emberger, I. Rudnay and L. Emberger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 May 2012 (Case R 482/2011-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH and Rudolf Leiner GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rudolf Leiner GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rudolf Leiner GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/20

---

Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)

(Case T-414/13)

2013/C 304/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

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

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 (Trademarks and Designs) of 22 May 2013 given in Case R 333/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) of 22 May 2013 given in Case R 333/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark KENZO ESTATE for goods in Class 33 — International Registration No 953373

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 720 706 of the word trade mark KENZO for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

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 Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1).

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/20

---

Action brought on 14 August 2013 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission

(Case T-419/13)

2013/C 304/35

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras, A. Valiente Martin and C. Maldonado Márquez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested Commission decision of 18 June 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested Commission decision of 18 June 2013;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

| — | in addition, as a measure of organisation of procedure, order the Commission to submit to the Court the documents to which it has denied access, so that the Court may examine them and verify the exactitude of the submissions made in the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

in addition, as a measure of organisation of procedure, order the Commission to submit to the Court the documents to which it has denied access, so that the Court may examine them and verify the exactitude of the submissions made in the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In February 2013, the Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (UAHE) requested access to certain documents in the possession of the European Commission by virtue of the mechanism for coordination with the national competition authorities provided for in Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1). Specifically, the applicant sought access to all documents and communications exchanged between the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition and the Spanish National Competition Commission (Comisión Nacional de la Competencia), concerning the penalty proceedings S-106/08 Almacenes de Hierro and S-254/10 Hierros Extremadura.

After a first extension of the time-limit until 11 April 2013, the Commission sent the UAHE a communication whereby it:

| (a) | granted access to the acknowledgements of receipt sent to the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia in relation to the two sets of proceedings in question; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

granted access to the acknowledgements of receipt sent to the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia in relation to the two sets of proceedings in question;

| (b) | informed the applicant that it did not have any information relating to those proceedings and that the information in its possession was protected by the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

informed the applicant that it did not have any information relating to those proceedings and that the information in its possession was protected by the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

The UAHE repeated its request and, after a first extension of the time-limit by 15 days, the Commission sent a further letter on 18 June, informing the UAHE that it was extending indefinitely the period for a response to the requests for access at issue.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001, in that the Commission did not carry out a concrete, individual assessment of the applicability of the exceptions laid down in that provision to the requests for access at issue in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001, in that the Commission did not carry out a concrete, individual assessment of the applicability of the exceptions laid down in that provision to the requests for access at issue in the present proceedings.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in that the requested information does not contain elements which could undermine the commercial interests of third-parties. In any event, that information could affect the interests of the applicant itself. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in that the requested information does not contain elements which could undermine the commercial interests of third-parties. In any event, that information could affect the interests of the applicant itself.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in that the concept of investigations provided therein can only refer to investigations by Community institutions or bodies, not national ones. Moreover, the facts investigated in both sets of proceedings are now time-barred. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in that the concept of investigations provided therein can only refer to investigations by Community institutions or bodies, not national ones. Moreover, the facts investigated in both sets of proceedings are now time-barred.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, in that, in the context of the requested documents, the Commission does not take decisions, since its approach is purely passive, merely receiving documents or making observations. Furthermore, and in any event, the exception relied on can be applied only in respect of internal documents. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, in that, in the context of the requested documents, the Commission does not take decisions, since its approach is purely passive, merely receiving documents or making observations. Furthermore, and in any event, the exception relied on can be applied only in respect of internal documents.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/21

---

Action brought on 14 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

(Case T-426/13)

2013/C 304/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmetica Cabinas, SL (El Masnou, Spain)

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 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1642/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1642/2012-1;

| — | Award the applicant the costs incurred by the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the costs incurred by the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘AINHOA’ for services and goods in Classes 3, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark registration No 2 720 811

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the rights of the CTM proprietor in respect of services in Classes 35 and 39 and rejected the application for revocation in respect of ‘cosmetic products’ in Class 3

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1).

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/21

---

Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Triarii v Commission

(Case T-435/13)

2013/C 304/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Triarii BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Verhellen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission (Re.: ENER B 1/IMMR(2013) ENER.B.1.2638778) dated 20 June 2013 in order to include the offer of the applicant in the tender; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission (Re.: ENER B 1/IMMR(2013) ENER.B.1.2638778) dated 20 June 2013 in order to include the offer of the applicant in the tender;

| — | In case the Court’s decision, as sought, is taken after the tender is awarded to a bidder:






  — | Annul the current tender No ENER/B1/2013-371 in order to give the applicant a chance to bid again; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In case the Court’s decision, as sought, is taken after the tender is awarded to a bidder:

—

Annul the current tender No ENER/B1/2013-371 in order to give the applicant a chance to bid again;

| — | Annul the decision to be taken by the European Commission granting tender No ENER/B1/2013-371 to a bidder; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to be taken by the European Commission granting tender No ENER/B1/2013-371 to a bidder; and/or

| — | Grant damages in compensation of a missed opportunity, due to the exclusion of the applicant from the tender No ENER/B1/2013-371. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant damages in compensation of a missed opportunity, due to the exclusion of the applicant from the tender No ENER/B1/2013-371.

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 General Court is competent to try the present case, in conformity with Article 263 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court is competent to try the present case, in conformity with Article 263 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, through its conduct, the Commission created legitimate expectation that the bid was served in due time on it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, through its conduct, the Commission created legitimate expectation that the bid was served in due time on it.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/22

---

Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté Prestige International (essence)

(Case T-448/13)

2013/C 304/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Ceuta, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange, G. Hild and C.Pape, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beauté Prestige International SA (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1085/2012-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1085/2012-5;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘essence’ for goods in Classes 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 21, 25 and 26 — Community trade mark registration No 6 816 144

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds pursuant to Article 52(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1), namely that the CTM was registered in breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and declared the CTM partially invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/22

---

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)

(Case T-449/13)

2013/C 304/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut S.A. (Łańcut, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June 2013 given in Case R 33/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June 2013 given in Case R 33/2012-4;

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark in colours green, red and gold, representing the image of a bovine animal and containing the verbal element ‘WISENT’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 5 142 039

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1)

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a), 8(1)(b), 8(5) in conjunction with 76(1), 75, 76(1) and (2) CTMR.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/23

---

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)

(Case T-450/13)

2013/C 304/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut S.A. (Łańcut, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June 2013 given in Case R 1734/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June 2013 given in Case R 1734/2011-4;

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark in colours red, green, gold and black representing the image of a bovine animal and containing the verbal elements ‘WISENT VODKA’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 7 044 472

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Polish trademarks Nos 86 410, 80 990, 80 991, 46 050, 208 988, 125 911, 189 866, 208 090, 62 081 registered for ‘alcoholic beverages’ in Class 33, Community trade mark No 5 585 138 for the figurative mark in colours black and white containing the verbal element ‘ŻUBRÓWKA’ and Community trade mark No 6 215 719 for the 3D mark in colours black and white containing the verbal element ‘ŻUBRÓWKA’, registered for ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application for Community trade mark registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1).

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/23

---

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case T-461/13)

2013/C 304/41

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2013, on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha). That decision found that that aid was partly incompatible with the internal market and therefore ordered that it be recovered.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five 11 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in the absence, in the present case, of any economic advantage granted to an entity engaged in an economic activity, of selectivity of that measure and of distortion of competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in the absence, in the present case, of any economic advantage granted to an entity engaged in an economic activity, of selectivity of that measure and of distortion of competition.

| 2. | Second plea: infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, given that it has not been established that the principle of technological neutrality was breached. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, given that it has not been established that the principle of technological neutrality was breached.

| 3. | Third plea: infringement of the procedure in State aid cases, having regard, in the present case, to its excessive duration, to the failure to take into account evidence that was presented, as well as lack of consistency and objectivity during the appraisal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea: infringement of the procedure in State aid cases, having regard, in the present case, to its excessive duration, to the failure to take into account evidence that was presented, as well as lack of consistency and objectivity during the appraisal.

| 4. | The fourth plea, in the alternative: infringement of the principles of legal certainty, equality, proportionality and subsidiarity, and absence of the obligation to recover the resulting aid, in so far as Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) waives that recovery requirement where the general principles of European Union law have been disregarded. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea, in the alternative: infringement of the principles of legal certainty, equality, proportionality and subsidiarity, and absence of the obligation to recover the resulting aid, in so far as Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) waives that recovery requirement where the general principles of European Union law have been disregarded.

| 5. | Fifth plea, likewise in the alternative: breach of the right to information, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the lack of a requirement to recover the resulting aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, likewise in the alternative: breach of the right to information, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the lack of a requirement to recover the resulting aid.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/24

---

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

(Case T-462/13)

2013/C 304/42

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) and Itelazpi SA (Bizkaia, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, M. Muñoz de Juan and N. Ruiz García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible and well-founded the grounds of annulment relied on in support of the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible and well-founded the grounds of annulment relied on in support of the present action;

| — | annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1, in so far as it finds that there is a State aid incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1, in so far as it finds that there is a State aid incompatible with the internal market;

| — | consequently, annul the recovery orders provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the recovery orders provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-461/13, Spain v Commission.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law in classifying the process of digitalisation as State aid.






  — | The applicants claim, in that regard, that the Commission carried out an incorrect analysis of Article 171(1) TFEU, having regard in particular to the case-law in Altmark concerning Services of General Economic Interests (SGEI), and that it was therefore wrong to conclude that there was State aid in the present case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in classifying the process of digitalisation as State aid.

—

The applicants claim, in that regard, that the Commission carried out an incorrect analysis of Article 171(1) TFEU, having regard in particular to the case-law in Altmark concerning Services of General Economic Interests (SGEI), and that it was therefore wrong to conclude that there was State aid in the present case.

| — | They add, in that context, that the measures examined in the contested decision were intended solely to ensure transmission of the digital television signal in the so-called ‘Zone II’ area (part of the territory that is not served by commercial operators and in which the population, in the absence of intervention by public authorities, would be deprived of access to television). |
| --- | --- |

—

They add, in that context, that the measures examined in the contested decision were intended solely to ensure transmission of the digital television signal in the so-called ‘Zone II’ area (part of the territory that is not served by commercial operators and in which the population, in the absence of intervention by public authorities, would be deprived of access to television).

| — | Moreover, the applicants observe that the principle of ‘technological neutrality’ may not lead to depriving the Member States of the discretion conferred on them by the Treaties to organise the provision of SGEIs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, the applicants observe that the principle of ‘technological neutrality’ may not lead to depriving the Member States of the discretion conferred on them by the Treaties to organise the provision of SGEIs.

| — | In any event, the national authorities have favoured terrestrial technology over satellite technology in Zone II because that option was clearly more logical, economical and effective, taking into account the pre-existing analogue terrestrial network, funded by public funds, which already covered Zone II. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, the national authorities have favoured terrestrial technology over satellite technology in Zone II because that option was clearly more logical, economical and effective, taking into account the pre-existing analogue terrestrial network, funded by public funds, which already covered Zone II.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law when assessing the compatibility of the aid






  — | In the alternative, should it be found that there is a State aid, the applicants argue that that aid should be considered compatible with the internal market in accordance with Articles 106(2) and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law when assessing the compatibility of the aid

—

In the alternative, should it be found that there is a State aid, the applicants argue that that aid should be considered compatible with the internal market in accordance with Articles 106(2) and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error on the part of the Commission when assessing the existing aid.






  — | In that regard, the applicants argue, also in the alternative, that in any event, the aid granted in the present case should be regarded as an existing aid. Given that a public television network already existed, it was in fact a simple modification and updating of that network, without any change in its function. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error on the part of the Commission when assessing the existing aid.

—

In that regard, the applicants argue, also in the alternative, that in any event, the aid granted in the present case should be regarded as an existing aid. Given that a public television network already existed, it was in fact a simple modification and updating of that network, without any change in its function.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/25

---

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

(Case T-463/13)

2013/C 304/43

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: M. Lorenzo Outón, P. Egerique Mosquera, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision by holding that the measures implemented in the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia) did not constitute unlawful State aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision by holding that the measures implemented in the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia) did not constitute unlawful State aid;

| — | in the alternative, in the event that the first head of claim is dismissed, annul the contested decision in order to conclude that RETEGAL is not a direct or an indirect beneficiary of unlawful State aid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event that the first head of claim is dismissed, annul the contested decision in order to conclude that RETEGAL is not a direct or an indirect beneficiary of unlawful State aid; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission, and Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.

The applicant claims, in particular, that:

| 1. | The Commission erred in law in concluding that there was State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission erred in law in concluding that there was State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

| 2. | The Commission infringed Article 106(2) TFEU in considering that the measures at issue are incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission infringed Article 106(2) TFEU in considering that the measures at issue are incompatible with the internal market.

| 3. | The Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it acknowledges, in the contested decision, that there is a structural deficiency in the public sector in question and that the public intervention at issue pursues an objective of public interest, but that it nevertheless describes the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market on the ground that the principle of technological neutrality has been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it acknowledges, in the contested decision, that there is a structural deficiency in the public sector in question and that the public intervention at issue pursues an objective of public interest, but that it nevertheless describes the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market on the ground that the principle of technological neutrality has been infringed.

| 4. | The Commission committed an error of assessment in taking the view that unlawful State aid had been paid to RETEGAL, an instrument of the Autonomous Community of Galicia, in so far as that instrument limited itself to buying and installing equipment financed by the public funds in question, with a view to their subsequent use by the municipalities, so that those municipalities can provide the public broadcasting service in rural and remote areas and thus compensate for the market failure that existed in those areas. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission committed an error of assessment in taking the view that unlawful State aid had been paid to RETEGAL, an instrument of the Autonomous Community of Galicia, in so far as that instrument limited itself to buying and installing equipment financed by the public funds in question, with a view to their subsequent use by the municipalities, so that those municipalities can provide the public broadcasting service in rural and remote areas and thus compensate for the market failure that existed in those areas.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/25

---

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Retegal v Commission

(Case T-464/13)

2013/C 304/44

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, SA (Retegal) (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: F. García Martínez y B. Pérez Conde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision by holding that the measures implemented in the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia) did not constitute unlawful State aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision by holding that the measures implemented in the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia) did not constitute unlawful State aid;

| — | in the alternative, in the event that the first head of claim is dismissed, annul the contested decision in order to conclude that RETEGAL is not a direct or indirect beneficiary of unlawful State aid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event that the first head of claim is dismissed, annul the contested decision in order to conclude that RETEGAL is not a direct or indirect beneficiary of unlawful State aid; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-463/13, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/26

---

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission

(Case T-465/13)

2013/C 304/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña (Catalonia, Spain) and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalonia, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible and well-founded the grounds of annulment relied on in support of the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible and well-founded the grounds of annulment relied on in support of the present action;

| — | annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1, in so far as it finds that there is a State aid incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1, in so far as it finds that there is a State aid incompatible with the internal market;

| — | consequently, annul the recovery orders provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the recovery orders provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-462/13, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the same pleas in law as those relied on in Case T-462/13.

---