# Official Journal C 93/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.093.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 93 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5729 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.093.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 93

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5729 March 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2014/C 093/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 85, 22.3.2014 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 093/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 85, 22.3.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 093/02 | Joined Cases C-512/11 and C-513/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland)) — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry (C-512/11), Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry v Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy (C-513/11) (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Maternity leave — Maintenance of payment and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework Agreement on parental leave — Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child — Working and remuneration conditions — National collective agreement — Female workers having taken maternity leave after interruption of a period of unpaid parental leave — Refusal to pay a salary during the maternity leave) | 2 |
| 2014/C 093/03 | Case C-530/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Concept of not prohibitively expensive judicial proceedings) | 3 |
| 2014/C 093/04 | Case C-537/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra v Capitaneria di Porto di Genova (Maritime transport — Directive 1999/32/EC — Marpol Convention 73/78 — Annex VI — Air pollution from ships — Passenger ships operating regular services — Cruise ships — Maximum sulphur content in marine fuels — Validity) | 3 |
| 2014/C 093/05 | Case C-65/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Leidseplein Beheer BV, H.J.M. de Vries v Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull Nederland BV (Request for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Trade mark with a reputation — Protection extended to non-similar goods or services — Use by a third party, without due cause, of a sign identical with or similar to the trade mark with a reputation — Definition of due cause) | 4 |
| 2014/C 093/06 | Case C-152/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2001/14/EEC — Development of the Union’s railways — Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure — Articles 7(3) and 8(1) — Possibility of levying a mark-up on charges — Costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service) | 4 |
| 2014/C 093/07 | Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Airport Shuttle Express scarl (C-162/12), Giovanni Panarisi (C-162/12), Società Cooperativa Autonoleggio Piccola arl (C-163/12) and Gianpaolo Vivani (C-163/12) v Comune di Grottaferrata (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/92 — Regulation (EC) No 12/98 — Car and driver hire services — National and regional legislation — Authorisation issued by municipalities — Conditions — Purely internal situations — Jurisdiction of the Court — Whether the requests are admissible) | 5 |
| 2014/C 093/08 | Case C-164/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte (Taxation — Corporation tax — Transfer of an interest in a partnership to a capital company — Book value — Value as part of a going concern — Agreement on the prevention of double taxation — Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains — Different treatment — Restriction on free movement of capital — Preserving the balanced allocation of powers to impose taxes between the Member States — Proportionality) | 6 |
| 2014/C 093/09 | Case C-285/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — Article 15(c) — Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict — Internal armed conflict — Interpretation independent of international humanitarian law — Criteria for assessment) | 6 |
| 2014/C 093/10 | Case C-296/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Income tax — Contributions paid to a savings pension — Tax reduction solely in respect of payments to institutions or funds established in that Member State — Coherence of the tax system — Efficacy of fiscal supervision) | 7 |
| 2014/C 093/11 | Case C-323/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania)) — E. ON Global Commodities SE, formerly E.ON Energy Trading SE v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți (Directive 79/1072/EEC — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons residing in another Member State — Rules for refund of VAT — Taxable persons designating a tax representative in accordance with provisions of national law preceding accession to the European Union — Precluded — Meaning of taxable person not established in the territory of the country — Condition of not being established — Condition of no supply of goods or services — Supplies of electricity to taxable dealers — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 171) | 7 |
| 2014/C 093/12 | Case C-355/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)) — Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl, 9Net Srl (Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights in the information society — Concept of technological measures — Protection device — Equipment and protected complementary products — Similar complementary devices, products or components from other undertakings — Exclusion of any interoperability between them — Scope of those technological measures — Relevance) | 8 |
| 2014/C 093/13 | Case C-367/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Proceedings initiated by Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher (Freedom of establishment — Public health — Article 49 TFEU — Pharmacies — Adequate supply of medicinal products to the public — Operating authorisation — Territorial distribution of pharmacies — Establishment of limits essentially based on a demographic criterion — Minimum distance between pharmacies) | 9 |
| 2014/C 093/14 | Case C-380/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Tariff headings — Decolourising earth — Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading 2508 — Concept of washed products — Elimination of impurities without changing the structure of the product — Chapter 38 of the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading 3802) | 9 |
| 2014/C 093/15 | Case C-385/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Request for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — National tax legislation establishing an exceptional tax on the turnover of store retail trade — Retail store chains — Existence of a discriminatory effect — Indirect discrimination) | 10 |
| 2014/C 093/16 | Joined Cases C-419/12 and C-420/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Crono Service Scarl and Others (C-419/12) and Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (C-420/12) v Roma Capitale and Regione Lazio (C-420/12) (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Car and driver hire services — Purely internal situation — Jurisdiction of the Court — Conditions for admissibility) | 10 |
| 2014/C 093/17 | Case C-424/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Fatorie SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor (Request for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Reverse charge procedure — Right to deduct — Payment of the tax to the service supplier — Omission of mandatory particulars — Payment of VAT not due — Loss of the right to deduct — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Principle of legal certainty) | 11 |
| 2014/C 093/18 | Case C-466/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retriever Sverige AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Meaning — Internet links (clickable links) giving access to protected works) | 12 |
| 2014/C 093/19 | Case C-479/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 7(1), 11(2), 19(2), 88 and 89(1)(a) and (d) — Unregistered Community design — Protection — Making available to the public — Novelty — Action for infringement — Burden of proof — Extinction of rights over time — Time-barring — Applicable law) | 12 |
| 2014/C 093/20 | Case C-509/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte, Portugal) — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Grant of a recreational boating licence — Condition of residency in the issuing country — Restriction for non-residents — Maintaining maritime safety — Public policy) | 13 |
| 2014/C 093/21 | Case C-528/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Mömax Logistik GmbH v Bundesamt für Justiz (Request for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 78/660/EEC — Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company — Application of the rules on the publication of accounts to companies governed by the law of one Member State and forming part of a group whose parent company is governed by the law of another Member State) | 14 |
| 2014/C 093/22 | Case C-596/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collective redundancies — Concept of workers — Exclusion of dirigenti — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1) and (2) — Infringement) | 14 |
| 2014/C 093/23 | Case C-613/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Request for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Egypt — Article 20 of Protocol 4 — Proof of origin — Movement certificate EUR.1 — Replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued at a time when the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authority — Refusal to apply preferential treatment) | 15 |
| 2014/C 093/24 | Case C-2/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupréau SAS (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Chapter 64 — Import of components required for the manufacture of sports footwear — Heading 6404 — Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials — Heading 6406 — Parts of footwear — General Rule 2(a) for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature — Incomplete or unfinished article having the essential character of the complete or finished article — Article presented unassembled or disassembled — Explanatory Note for the interpretation of the Harmonised System — Assembly operations and not working operations for completion into the finished state) | 15 |
| 2014/C 093/25 | Case C-18/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Maks Pen EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Sofia, formerly Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto Sofia (Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Supplies made — Tax inspection — Supplier not having the necessary resources — Concept of tax evasion — Obligation to make a finding of tax evasion of the court’s own motion — Requirement that the service actually be supplied — Requirement to keep accounts in sufficient detail — Legal proceedings — National court prohibited from classifying the tax evasion as a criminal offence and adversely affecting the applicant’s situation) | 16 |
| 2014/C 093/26 | Case C-31/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Hungary v European Commission, Slovak Republic (Appeal — Protected geographical indications — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine — E-Bacchus database — Tokaj) | 17 |
| 2014/C 093/27 | Case C-69/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy)) — Mediaset SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (Request for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Subsidised purchase or renting of digital decoders — Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Quantification of the amount to be recovered — Role of the national court — Taking into consideration by the national court of the positions of the Commission in the enforcement of its decision — Principle of cooperation in good faith) | 17 |
| 2014/C 093/28 | Case C-98/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA, (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation No 1383/2003 — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Article 2 — Scope of the Regulation — Private sale by internet of a counterfeit watch from a non-member country to an individual residing in a Member State — Seizure of the watch by the customs authorities on entry into the territory of the Member State — Lawfulness of seizure — Conditions — Conditions relating to infringement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4 — Distribution to the public — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Use in the course of trade) | 18 |
| 2014/C 093/29 | Case C-139/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Area of freedom, security and justice — Standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Biometric passport — Inclusion of digital fingerprints — Failure to implement — Failure to issue within the prescribed periods) | 18 |
| 2014/C 093/30 | Case C-653/13: Action brought on 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic | 19 |
| 2014/C 093/31 | Case C-667/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Portuguese State v Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação | 19 |
| 2014/C 093/32 | Case C-38/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería v Samir Zaizoune | 20 |
| 2014/C 093/33 | Case C-50/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 3 February 2014 — CASTA and Others v A.S.L. di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4) and Regione Piemonte | 20 |
| 2014/C 093/34 | Case C-60/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic | 21 |
| 2014/C 093/35 | Case C-73/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Council of the European Union v European Commission | 21 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 093/36 | Case T-570/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM (La qualité est la meilleure des recettes) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark La qualité est la meilleure des recettes — Mark constituted by an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 22 |
| 2014/C 093/37 | Case T-81/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Beco v Commission (Dumping — Imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in China and Taiwan — Application for recovery of charges levied — Second subparagraph of Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Legal certainty) | 22 |
| 2014/C 093/38 | Case T-380/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line (DEMON) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark DEMON — Prior international word mark DEMON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 22 |
| 2014/C 093/39 | Case T-26/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (CALDEA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CALDEA — Earlier international word mark BALEA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 23 |
| 2014/C 093/40 | Case T-614/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 January 2014 — Romonta v Commission (Interim measures — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — System of exchange of greenhouse gas emission allowances — Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 — Application for recognition of hardship — Lack of urgency) | 23 |
| 2014/C 093/41 | Case T-688/13: Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Deloitte Consulting v Commission | 23 |
| 2014/C 093/42 | Case T-693/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Mikhalchanka v Council | 25 |
| 2014/C 093/43 | Case T-694/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Ipatau v Council | 25 |
| 2014/C 093/44 | Case T-697/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK) | 25 |
| 2014/C 093/45 | Case T-26/14 P: Appeal brought on 8 January 2014 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12, Schönberger v Court of Auditors | 26 |
| 2014/C 093/46 | Case T-44/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission | 26 |
| 2014/C 093/47 | Case T-51/14: Action brought on 22 January 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission | 27 |
| 2014/C 093/48 | Case T-60/14: Action brought on 27 January 2014 — BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO) | 27 |
| 2014/C 093/49 | Case T-64/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Good Luck Shipping v Council | 28 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2014/C 093/50 | Case F-20/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2014 — Moës v Commission | 29 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 093/02

Joined Cases C-512/11 and C-513/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland)) — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry (C-512/11), Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry v Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy (C-513/11) (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Maternity leave — Maintenance of payment and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework Agreement on parental leave — Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child — Working and remuneration conditions — National collective agreement — Female workers having taken maternity leave after interruption of a period of unpaid parental leave — Refusal to pay a salary during the maternity leave)

2

2014/C 093/03

Case C-530/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Concept of not prohibitively expensive judicial proceedings)

3

2014/C 093/04

Case C-537/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra v Capitaneria di Porto di Genova (Maritime transport — Directive 1999/32/EC — Marpol Convention 73/78 — Annex VI — Air pollution from ships — Passenger ships operating regular services — Cruise ships — Maximum sulphur content in marine fuels — Validity)

3

2014/C 093/05

Case C-65/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Leidseplein Beheer BV, H.J.M. de Vries v Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull Nederland BV (Request for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Trade mark with a reputation — Protection extended to non-similar goods or services — Use by a third party, without due cause, of a sign identical with or similar to the trade mark with a reputation — Definition of due cause)

4

2014/C 093/06

Case C-152/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2001/14/EEC — Development of the Union’s railways — Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure — Articles 7(3) and 8(1) — Possibility of levying a mark-up on charges — Costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service)

4

2014/C 093/07

Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Airport Shuttle Express scarl (C-162/12), Giovanni Panarisi (C-162/12), Società Cooperativa Autonoleggio Piccola arl (C-163/12) and Gianpaolo Vivani (C-163/12) v Comune di Grottaferrata (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/92 — Regulation (EC) No 12/98 — Car and driver hire services — National and regional legislation — Authorisation issued by municipalities — Conditions — Purely internal situations — Jurisdiction of the Court — Whether the requests are admissible)

5

2014/C 093/08

Case C-164/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte (Taxation — Corporation tax — Transfer of an interest in a partnership to a capital company — Book value — Value as part of a going concern — Agreement on the prevention of double taxation — Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains — Different treatment — Restriction on free movement of capital — Preserving the balanced allocation of powers to impose taxes between the Member States — Proportionality)

6

2014/C 093/09

Case C-285/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — Article 15(c) — Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict — Internal armed conflict — Interpretation independent of international humanitarian law — Criteria for assessment)

6

2014/C 093/10

Case C-296/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Income tax — Contributions paid to a savings pension — Tax reduction solely in respect of payments to institutions or funds established in that Member State — Coherence of the tax system — Efficacy of fiscal supervision)

7

2014/C 093/11

Case C-323/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania)) — E. ON Global Commodities SE, formerly E.ON Energy Trading SE v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți (Directive 79/1072/EEC — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons residing in another Member State — Rules for refund of VAT — Taxable persons designating a tax representative in accordance with provisions of national law preceding accession to the European Union — Precluded — Meaning of taxable person not established in the territory of the country — Condition of not being established — Condition of no supply of goods or services — Supplies of electricity to taxable dealers — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 171)

7

2014/C 093/12

Case C-355/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)) — Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl, 9Net Srl (Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights in the information society — Concept of technological measures — Protection device — Equipment and protected complementary products — Similar complementary devices, products or components from other undertakings — Exclusion of any interoperability between them — Scope of those technological measures — Relevance)

8

2014/C 093/13

Case C-367/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Proceedings initiated by Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher (Freedom of establishment — Public health — Article 49 TFEU — Pharmacies — Adequate supply of medicinal products to the public — Operating authorisation — Territorial distribution of pharmacies — Establishment of limits essentially based on a demographic criterion — Minimum distance between pharmacies)

9

2014/C 093/14

Case C-380/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Tariff headings — Decolourising earth — Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading 2508 — Concept of washed products — Elimination of impurities without changing the structure of the product — Chapter 38 of the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading 3802)

9

2014/C 093/15

Case C-385/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Request for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — National tax legislation establishing an exceptional tax on the turnover of store retail trade — Retail store chains — Existence of a discriminatory effect — Indirect discrimination)

10

2014/C 093/16

Joined Cases C-419/12 and C-420/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Crono Service Scarl and Others (C-419/12) and Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (C-420/12) v Roma Capitale and Regione Lazio (C-420/12) (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Car and driver hire services — Purely internal situation — Jurisdiction of the Court — Conditions for admissibility)

10

2014/C 093/17

Case C-424/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Fatorie SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor (Request for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Reverse charge procedure — Right to deduct — Payment of the tax to the service supplier — Omission of mandatory particulars — Payment of VAT not due — Loss of the right to deduct — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Principle of legal certainty)

11

2014/C 093/18

Case C-466/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retriever Sverige AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Meaning — Internet links (clickable links) giving access to protected works)

12

2014/C 093/19

Case C-479/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 7(1), 11(2), 19(2), 88 and 89(1)(a) and (d) — Unregistered Community design — Protection — Making available to the public — Novelty — Action for infringement — Burden of proof — Extinction of rights over time — Time-barring — Applicable law)

12

2014/C 093/20

Case C-509/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte, Portugal) — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Grant of a recreational boating licence — Condition of residency in the issuing country — Restriction for non-residents — Maintaining maritime safety — Public policy)

13

2014/C 093/21

Case C-528/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Mömax Logistik GmbH v Bundesamt für Justiz (Request for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 78/660/EEC — Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company — Application of the rules on the publication of accounts to companies governed by the law of one Member State and forming part of a group whose parent company is governed by the law of another Member State)

14

2014/C 093/22

Case C-596/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collective redundancies — Concept of workers — Exclusion of dirigenti — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1) and (2) — Infringement)

14

2014/C 093/23

Case C-613/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Request for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Egypt — Article 20 of Protocol 4 — Proof of origin — Movement certificate EUR.1 — Replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued at a time when the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authority — Refusal to apply preferential treatment)

15

2014/C 093/24

Case C-2/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupréau SAS (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Chapter 64 — Import of components required for the manufacture of sports footwear — Heading 6404 — Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials — Heading 6406 — Parts of footwear — General Rule 2(a) for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature — Incomplete or unfinished article having the essential character of the complete or finished article — Article presented unassembled or disassembled — Explanatory Note for the interpretation of the Harmonised System — Assembly operations and not working operations for completion into the finished state)

15

2014/C 093/25

Case C-18/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Maks Pen EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Sofia, formerly Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto Sofia (Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Supplies made — Tax inspection — Supplier not having the necessary resources — Concept of tax evasion — Obligation to make a finding of tax evasion of the court’s own motion — Requirement that the service actually be supplied — Requirement to keep accounts in sufficient detail — Legal proceedings — National court prohibited from classifying the tax evasion as a criminal offence and adversely affecting the applicant’s situation)

16

2014/C 093/26

Case C-31/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Hungary v European Commission, Slovak Republic (Appeal — Protected geographical indications — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine — E-Bacchus database — Tokaj)

17

2014/C 093/27

Case C-69/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy)) — Mediaset SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (Request for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Subsidised purchase or renting of digital decoders — Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Quantification of the amount to be recovered — Role of the national court — Taking into consideration by the national court of the positions of the Commission in the enforcement of its decision — Principle of cooperation in good faith)

17

2014/C 093/28

Case C-98/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA, (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation No 1383/2003 — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Article 2 — Scope of the Regulation — Private sale by internet of a counterfeit watch from a non-member country to an individual residing in a Member State — Seizure of the watch by the customs authorities on entry into the territory of the Member State — Lawfulness of seizure — Conditions — Conditions relating to infringement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4 — Distribution to the public — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Use in the course of trade)

18

2014/C 093/29

Case C-139/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Area of freedom, security and justice — Standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Biometric passport — Inclusion of digital fingerprints — Failure to implement — Failure to issue within the prescribed periods)

18

2014/C 093/30

Case C-653/13: Action brought on 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

19

2014/C 093/31

Case C-667/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Portuguese State v Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação

19

2014/C 093/32

Case C-38/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería v Samir Zaizoune

20

2014/C 093/33

Case C-50/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 3 February 2014 — CASTA and Others v A.S.L. di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4) and Regione Piemonte

20

2014/C 093/34

Case C-60/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

21

2014/C 093/35

Case C-73/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

21

General Court

2014/C 093/36

Case T-570/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM (La qualité est la meilleure des recettes) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark La qualité est la meilleure des recettes — Mark constituted by an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

22

2014/C 093/37

Case T-81/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Beco v Commission (Dumping — Imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in China and Taiwan — Application for recovery of charges levied — Second subparagraph of Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Legal certainty)

22

2014/C 093/38

Case T-380/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line (DEMON) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark DEMON — Prior international word mark DEMON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

22

2014/C 093/39

Case T-26/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (CALDEA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CALDEA — Earlier international word mark BALEA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

23

2014/C 093/40

Case T-614/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 January 2014 — Romonta v Commission (Interim measures — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — System of exchange of greenhouse gas emission allowances — Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 — Application for recognition of hardship — Lack of urgency)

23

2014/C 093/41

Case T-688/13: Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Deloitte Consulting v Commission

23

2014/C 093/42

Case T-693/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Mikhalchanka v Council

25

2014/C 093/43

Case T-694/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Ipatau v Council

25

2014/C 093/44

Case T-697/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)

25

2014/C 093/45

Case T-26/14 P: Appeal brought on 8 January 2014 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12, Schönberger v Court of Auditors

26

2014/C 093/46

Case T-44/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission

26

2014/C 093/47

Case T-51/14: Action brought on 22 January 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission

27

2014/C 093/48

Case T-60/14: Action brought on 27 January 2014 — BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO)

27

2014/C 093/49

Case T-64/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

28

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2014/C 093/50

Case F-20/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2014 — Moës v Commission

29

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/1

---

2014/C 93/01

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

OJ C 85, 22.3.2014

Past publications

OJ C 78, 15.3.2014

OJ C 71, 8.3.2014

OJ C 61, 1.3.2014

OJ C 52, 22.2.2014

OJ C 45, 15.2.2014

OJ C 39, 8.2.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland)) — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry (C-512/11), Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry v Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy (C-513/11)

(Joined Cases C-512/11 and C-513/11) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Maternity leave - Maintenance of payment and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework Agreement on parental leave - Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child - Working and remuneration conditions - National collective agreement - Female workers having taken maternity leave after interruption of a period of unpaid parental leave - Refusal to pay a salary during the maternity leave)

2014/C 93/02

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry (C-512/11), Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry (C-513/11)

Defendants: Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry (C-512/11), Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy (C-513/11)

Supported by: Mehiläinen Oy (C-512/11)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Työtuomioistuin — Interpretation of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) and Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Collective agreement under which workers are entitled to be paid their full salary during maternity leave on condition that they have been employed for at least three months continuously before the start of maternity leave — Salary not paid during maternity leave under that agreement to workers who take maternity leave immediately after unpaid child-care leave.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that provided for in the collective agreements at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a pregnant worker who interrupts a period of unpaid parental leave within the meaning of that directive to take, with immediate effect, a maternity leave within the meaning of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) does not benefit from the maintenance of the remuneration to which she would have been entitled had that period of maternity leave been preceded by a minimum period of resumption of work.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-530/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings)

2014/C 93/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and L. Armati, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell and M. Holt, Agents, and J. Maurici, Barrister)

Supported by: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C.H. Vang, Agent), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and A. Joyce, Agents, and E. Barrington and G. Gilmore, Barristers)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Obligation to remove or reduce financial barriers to access to justice in environmental matters — Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, inasmuch as they provide that the judicial proceedings referred to must not be prohibitively expensive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, inasmuch as they provide that the judicial proceedings referred to must not be prohibitively expensive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs and the Kingdom of Denmark and Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra v Capitaneria di Porto di Genova

(Case C-537/11) (1)

(Maritime transport - Directive 1999/32/EC - Marpol Convention 73/78 - Annex VI - Air pollution from ships - Passenger ships operating regular services - Cruise ships - Maximum sulphur content in marine fuels - Validity)

2014/C 93/04

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra

Defendant: Capitaneria di Porto di Genova,

Intervening parties: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Genova — Validity of Article 4a of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ 1999 L 121, p. 13), as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC (OJ 1991 L 191, p. 59) — Compatibility with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (‘MARPOL Convention’) of the obligation on Member States to take all necessary measures to prevent the use of marine fuels the sulphur content of which exceeds 1.5% by mass by passengers ships operating regular service to or from European Union ports — Interpretation of Article 2 of the same directive — Concept of ‘regular services’ — Applicability of the said limit to cruise ships.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | A cruise ship, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls within the scope of Article 4a(4) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 with regard to the criterion of ‘regular services’, as laid down in Article 2(3g) thereof, provided that it operates cruises, with or without intermediate calls, finishing in the port of departure or another port, provided that those cruises are organised at a particular frequency, on specific dates and, in principle, at specified departure and arrival times, with interested persons being able to choose freely between the various cruises offered, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A cruise ship, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls within the scope of Article 4a(4) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 with regard to the criterion of ‘regular services’, as laid down in Article 2(3g) thereof, provided that it operates cruises, with or without intermediate calls, finishing in the port of departure or another port, provided that those cruises are organised at a particular frequency, on specific dates and, in principle, at specified departure and arrival times, with interested persons being able to choose freely between the various cruises offered, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

| 2. | The validity of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32, as amended by Directive 2005/33, cannot be examined in the light of the general principle of international law pacta sunt servanda or the principle of cooperation in good faith enshrined in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU on the ground that that provision of the directive may lead to an infringement of Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, signed in London on 2 November 1973, as supplemented by the Protocol of 17 February 1978 and thereby oblige the Member States party to the Protocol of 1997 amending the International Convention of 1973 for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, signed in London on 26 September 1997, to infringe their obligations with respect to the other contracting parties thereto. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The validity of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32, as amended by Directive 2005/33, cannot be examined in the light of the general principle of international law pacta sunt servanda or the principle of cooperation in good faith enshrined in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU on the ground that that provision of the directive may lead to an infringement of Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, signed in London on 2 November 1973, as supplemented by the Protocol of 17 February 1978 and thereby oblige the Member States party to the Protocol of 1997 amending the International Convention of 1973 for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, signed in London on 26 September 1997, to infringe their obligations with respect to the other contracting parties thereto.

| 3. | It is not for the Court to rule on the impact of Annex VI on the scope of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is not for the Court to rule on the impact of Annex VI on the scope of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32.

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Leidseplein Beheer BV, H.J.M. de Vries v Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull Nederland BV

(Case C-65/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Trade mark with a reputation - Protection extended to non-similar goods or services - Use by a third party, without due cause, of a sign identical with or similar to the trade mark with a reputation - Definition of ‘due cause’)

2014/C 93/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Leidseplein Beheer BV, H.J.M. de Vries

Defendants: Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull Nederland BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Rights conferred by the mark — Trade mark with a reputation — Protection extended to non-similar goods or services — Use by a third party, without due cause, of a sign identical with, or similar to, the trade mark with a reputation which enables that third party to take unfair advantage of, or which causes detriment to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark — Concept of due cause.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation may be obliged, pursuant to the concept of ‘due cause’ within the meaning of that provision, to tolerate the use by a third party of a sign similar to that mark in relation to a product which is identical to that for which that mark was registered, if it is demonstrated that that sign was being used before that mark was filed and that the use of that sign in relation to the identical product is in good faith. In order to determine whether that is so, the national court must take account, in particular, of:

| — | how that sign has been accepted by, and what its reputation is with, the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

how that sign has been accepted by, and what its reputation is with, the relevant public;

| — | the degree of proximity between the goods and services for which that sign was originally used and the product for which the mark with a reputation was registered; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the degree of proximity between the goods and services for which that sign was originally used and the product for which the mark with a reputation was registered; and

| — | the economic and commercial significance of the use for that product of the sign which is similar to that mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

the economic and commercial significance of the use for that product of the sign which is similar to that mark.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-152/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2001/14/EEC - Development of the Union’s railways - Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) - Possibility of levying a mark-up on charges - Costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service)

2014/C 93/06

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Vasileva and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Ivanov, D. Drambozova and E. Petranova, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1) — Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure — Notion of ‘cost directly incurred as a result of operating the train service’ — Income exceeding the costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service — Conditions for the application of Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by allowing to be included in the calculation of charges incurred for all of the minimum services and for access by the network to the service infrastructure costs, namely staff remuneration and social security contributions, which cannot be considered to be directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by allowing to be included in the calculation of charges incurred for all of the minimum services and for access by the network to the service infrastructure costs, namely staff remuneration and social security contributions, which cannot be considered to be directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Airport Shuttle Express scarl (C-162/12), Giovanni Panarisi (C-162/12), Società Cooperativa Autonoleggio Piccola arl (C-163/12) and Gianpaolo Vivani (C-163/12) v Comune di Grottaferrata

(Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12) (1)

(Requests for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/92 - Regulation (EC) No 12/98 - Car and driver hire services - National and regional legislation - Authorisation issued by municipalities - Conditions - Purely internal situations - Jurisdiction of the Court - Whether the requests are admissible)

2014/C 93/07

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Airport Shuttle Express scarl (C-162/12), Giovanni Panarisi (C-162/12), Società Cooperativa Autonoleggio Piccola arl (C-163/12) and Gianpaolo Vivani (C-163/12)

Defendant: Comune di Grottaferrata

In the presence of: Federnoleggio

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 90 TFEU; Article 3 TEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 5 TFEU and 6 TFEU; Articles 101 and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation (EEC) No 2454/92 of 23 July 1992 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State (OJ 1992 L 251, p. 1); and Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 of 11 December 1997 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State (OJ 1998 L 4, p. 10) — Car and driver hire service — National legislation making the provision of that service conditional upon possession of an authorisation issued by the municipal authorities and requiring anyone holding such an authorisation to have the normal base for their vehicle(s) located in the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation, and to begin and end the hire in that territory.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the requests from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) for a preliminary ruling, made by decisions of 19 October 2011 and 1 December 2011 in Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, to the extent that those requests concern the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU. Those requests are inadmissible to the extent that they concern the interpretation of other provisions of EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

(Case C-164/12) (1)

(Taxation - Corporation tax - Transfer of an interest in a partnership to a capital company - Book value - Value as part of a going concern - Agreement on the prevention of double taxation - Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains - Different treatment - Restriction on free movement of capital - Preserving the balanced allocation of powers to impose taxes between the Member States - Proportionality)

2014/C 93/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) — Partnerships established in another Member State contributing interests in an undertaking to a national capital company in exchange for shares in that company — Legislation providing that in such a case the capital contributed must be entered in the balance sheet of the capital company at its true value and not its book value, thus bringing forward the date on which the unrealised capital gains will be taxed — Whether it is possible to pay the tax in five annual instalments if a guarantee is provided.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States may justify the legislation of a Member State which requires assets in a limited partnership contributed to the capital of a capital company with its registered office in the territory of that Member State to be assessed at their value as part of a going concern, thus giving rise to the taxation, before they are actually realised, of the capital gains relating to those assets generated in that territory, if it will in fact be impossible for that Member State to exercise its powers of taxation in relation to those gains when they are in fact realised, which is a matter for the national court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States may justify the legislation of a Member State which requires assets in a limited partnership contributed to the capital of a capital company with its registered office in the territory of that Member State to be assessed at their value as part of a going concern, thus giving rise to the taxation, before they are actually realised, of the capital gains relating to those assets generated in that territory, if it will in fact be impossible for that Member State to exercise its powers of taxation in relation to those gains when they are in fact realised, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

| 2. | The national legislation of a Member State which provides for the immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains generated in its territory does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of the preservation of the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States, provided that, where the taxable person elects for deferred payment, the requirement to provide a bank guarantee is imposed on the basis of the actual risk of non-recovery of the tax. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The national legislation of a Member State which provides for the immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains generated in its territory does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of the preservation of the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States, provided that, where the taxable person elects for deferred payment, the requirement to provide a bank guarantee is imposed on the basis of the actual risk of non-recovery of the tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-285/12) (1)

(Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Person eligible for subsidiary protection - Article 15(c) - Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict - ‘Internal armed conflict’ - Interpretation independent of international humanitarian law - Criteria for assessment)

2014/C 93/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Aboubacar Diakité

Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Refusal to grant refugee status or subsidiary protection — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — ‘Internal armed conflict’ — Whether a specific interpretation independent of international humanitarian law is required, or whether an interpretation consistent with that provided under international humanitarian law is permissible — Criteria for assessment.

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, it must be acknowledged that an internal armed conflict exists, for the purposes of applying that provision, if a State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or if two or more armed groups confront each other. It is not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ under international humanitarian law; nor is it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-296/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Income tax - Contributions paid to a savings pension - Tax reduction solely in respect of payments to institutions or funds established in that Member State - Coherence of the tax system - Efficacy of fiscal supervision)

2014/C 93/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Payments to a savings pension — Tax reduction — Payments made definitively in Belgium.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting and maintaining the tax reduction in respect of contributions paid to a savings pension in so far as that reduction is applicable only in respect of payments to institutions and funds established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining the tax reduction in respect of contributions paid to a savings pension in so far as that reduction is applicable only in respect of payments to institutions and funds established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania)) — E. ON Global Commodities SE, formerly E.ON Energy Trading SE v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți

(Case C-323/12) (1)

(Directive 79/1072/EEC - Common system of value added tax - Taxable persons residing in another Member State - Rules for refund of VAT - Taxable persons designating a tax representative in accordance with provisions of national law preceding accession to the European Union - Precluded - Meaning of ‘taxable person not established in the territory of the country’ - Condition of not being established - Condition of no supply of goods or services - Supplies of electricity to taxable dealers - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 171)

2014/C 93/11

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E. ON Global Commodities SE, formerly E.ON Energy Trading SE

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel București — Interpretation of Articles 1, 3, 4 and 6 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — Refund of the VAT in one Member State to taxable persons established in another Member State and having, in the first State, appointed a tax representative in accordance with the provisions of national law applicable before that State acceded to the European Union — Condition that the taxable person should not be registered in the Member State of refund — Concept of a condition in addition to those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/1072/EEC — Whether compatible with Article 6 of that directive — Direct effect of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/1072/EEC.

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, read together with Articles 38, 171 and 195 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person established in one Member State and who has made supplies of electricity to taxable dealers established in another Member State has the right to rely on the Eighth Directive 79/1072 in the latter State in order to obtain a refund of input value added tax. That right is not precluded merely by the designation of a tax representative who is identified for value added tax purposes in the latter State.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)) — Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl, 9Net Srl

(Case C-355/12) (1)

(Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Concept of ‘technological measures’ - Protection device - Equipment and protected complementary products - Similar complementary devices, products or components from other undertakings - Exclusion of any interoperability between them - Scope of those technological measures - Relevance)

2014/C 93/12

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nintendo Co. Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc., Nintendo of Europe GmbH

Defendants: PC Box Srl, 9Net Srl

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Milano — Interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10), read together with recital 48 in the preamble to that directive — Concept of ‘technological measures’ — Protection device which excludes any interoperability between, first, the equipment and complementary protected products and, second, similar complementary equipment and products not originating from the manufacturing undertaking or from undertakings authorised by it — Relevance of the designation assigned by the manufacturing undertaking to those technological measures.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘effective technological measure’, for the purposes of Article 6(3) of that directive, is capable of covering technological measures comprising, principally, equipping not only the housing system containing the protected work, such as the videogame, with a recognition device in order to protect it against acts not authorised by the holder of any copyright, but also portable equipment or consoles intended to ensure access to those games and their use. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘effective technological measure’, for the purposes of Article 6(3) of that directive, is capable of covering technological measures comprising, principally, equipping not only the housing system containing the protected work, such as the videogame, with a recognition device in order to protect it against acts not authorised by the holder of any copyright, but also portable equipment or consoles intended to ensure access to those games and their use.

| 2. | It is for the national court to determine whether other measures or measures which are not installed in consoles could cause less interference with the activities of third parties or limitations to those activities, while still providing comparable protection of the rightholder’s rights. Accordingly, it is relevant to take account, inter alia, of the relative costs of different types of technological measures, of technological and practical aspects of their implementation, and of a comparison of the effectiveness of those different types of technological measures as regards the protection of the rightholder’s rights, that effectiveness however not having to be absolute. That court must also examine the purpose of devices, products or components, which are capable of circumventing those technological measures. In that regard, the evidence of use which third parties actually make of them will, in the light of the circumstances at issue, be particularly relevant. The national court may, in particular, examine how often those devices, products or components are in fact used in disregard of copyright and how often they are used for purposes which do not infringe copyright. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national court to determine whether other measures or measures which are not installed in consoles could cause less interference with the activities of third parties or limitations to those activities, while still providing comparable protection of the rightholder’s rights. Accordingly, it is relevant to take account, inter alia, of the relative costs of different types of technological measures, of technological and practical aspects of their implementation, and of a comparison of the effectiveness of those different types of technological measures as regards the protection of the rightholder’s rights, that effectiveness however not having to be absolute. That court must also examine the purpose of devices, products or components, which are capable of circumventing those technological measures. In that regard, the evidence of use which third parties actually make of them will, in the light of the circumstances at issue, be particularly relevant. The national court may, in particular, examine how often those devices, products or components are in fact used in disregard of copyright and how often they are used for purposes which do not infringe copyright.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Proceedings initiated by Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher

(Case C-367/12) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Public health - Article 49 TFEU - Pharmacies - Adequate supply of medicinal products to the public - Operating authorisation - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Establishment of limits essentially based on a demographic criterion - Minimum distance between pharmacies)

2014/C 93/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher

Third party: Agnes Hemetsberger, successor to Susanna Zehetner

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU and Articles 16 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Member State's rules which make the award of a concession to operate a pharmacy subject to an assessment of the needs of the market based on a number of complex and almost unforeseeable criteria.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, in particular the requirement that the desired objective be achieved in a consistent manner, must be interpreted as precluding legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, as an essential criterion for determining whether a need for the establishment of a new pharmacy exists, a rigid limit on the ‘people remaining to be served’, where the competent authorities cannot depart from that limit to take account of particular local geographical conditions.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-380/12) (1)

(Tariff headings - Decolourising earth - Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading 2508 - Concept of washed products - Elimination of impurities without changing the structure of the product - Chapter 38 of the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading 3802)

2014/C 93/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Decolorising earth — Classification under subheading 2508 40 00 or under subheading 3802 90 00 of the Combined Nomenclature — Notion of ‘eliminating impurities’ within the meaning of Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘eliminating impurities’ referred to in Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as covering the elimination of chemical components found in a mineral product in a crude state through natural circumstances, in so far as that elimination takes place with a view to enhancing the ability of the products at issue to fulfil their inherent intended use, which it is for the national court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘eliminating impurities’ referred to in Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as covering the elimination of chemical components found in a mineral product in a crude state through natural circumstances, in so far as that elimination takes place with a view to enhancing the ability of the products at issue to fulfil their inherent intended use, which it is for the national court to verify.

| 2. | Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that products which have undergone treatment involving the use of chemical substances and leading to the elimination of impurities may be classified under CN tariff heading 2508 only if that treatment has not modified their superficial structure, which it is for the national court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that products which have undergone treatment involving the use of chemical substances and leading to the elimination of impurities may be classified under CN tariff heading 2508 only if that treatment has not modified their superficial structure, which it is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-385/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - National tax legislation establishing an exceptional tax on the turnover of store retail trade - Retail store chains - Existence of a discriminatory effect - Indirect discrimination)

2014/C 93/15

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Interpretation of Articles 18 TFEU, 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 55 TFEU, 56 TFEU, 63 TFEU, 65 TFEU and 110 TFEU — National tax legislation creating a special tax on the store retail trade sector — Progressive tax calculated on the basis of net turnover — Threshold tax rate resulting in greater impact on retail food trade undertakings owned by foreigners than on those owned by nationals.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State relating to tax on the turnover of store retail trade which obliges taxable legal persons constituting, within a group, ‘linked undertakings’ within the meaning of that legislation, to aggregate their turnover for the purpose of the application of a steeply progressive rate, and then to divide the resulting amount of tax among them in proportion to their actual turnover, if — and it is for the referring court to determine whether this is the case — the taxable persons covered by the highest band of the special tax are ‘linked’, in the majority of cases, to companies which have their registered office in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Crono Service Scarl and Others (C-419/12) and Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (C-420/12) v Roma Capitale and Regione Lazio (C-420/12)

(Joined Cases C-419/12 and C-420/12) (1)

(Requests for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Car and driver hire services - Purely internal situation - Jurisdiction of the Court - Conditions for admissibility)

2014/C 93/16

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Crono Service Scarl, Carla Silvestri, Nando Cese, Fabrizio Melaragno, Yahia Nafea, Robert Martin, Angelo Minosse, Raimondo Pratico’, Angelo Vincenti, Bruno Pesce, Francesco Fedeli, Roberto Sebastiani, Francesco Nanni, Vincenzo Savino, Andrea Rossi, Filiberto Marinelli, Liberato Puglia, Stefano Sordelli, Carlo Antonini, Andrea Iannilli, Pasquale Iavarone, Roberto Agostinelli, Valerio Giannoni, Fernando Boccadamo, Aristide Salvati, Annalisa Di Grigoli, Antonio Evangelisti, Marco Brecciaroli, Cardoso Wandenberg, Fabrizio Villamaina, Sandro Rossi, Fabrizio Di Somone, Debora Falasca, Elisabetta Serrano, Claudio Bandini, Bruno Piromallo, Maurizio Pesce, Mirko Capogrossi, Giovanni Barilotti, Stefano Petitti, Paolo Ricci, Vincenzo Curto, Luci Di Luzio, Gianfrancesco Argiro’, Magdi Gou Bial, Secondo Uffreduzzi, Fausto Menotti, Maurizio Montini, Danilo Valdambrini, Andrea Orfei, Daniele Silvestrini, Maurizio Borzi, Flavio Piromalli, Carlo Campanari, Volodymyr Lupu, Solution Car scarl, Paolo De Santis, Michele Rienzi, Roberta Rinaldi, Bps Autonoleggio scarl, Sebastiano Favara, Stefano Calabretta, Adriano Carducci, Giuseppa Gabriello, Modestino Capaccio, Mario Paruzza, Massimiliano Casu, Luciano Gulizia, Planet Service scarl, Fabio Belmonte, Fabrizio Romagnoli, Italo Ratta, Fabio Martella, Ilario Fiano, Coop Michelangelo, Michele Falcione, Roberto Natalizia, Claudio Botticelli, Odoardo Palombelli, Mario Rondeoni, Massimiliano Dionisi, Luigi Vitrano, Stefano Iovino, Merella Micheciivo, Daniele Latorre, Walter Luccaferri, Bruno Iannone, Mariannina Tesone, Alessandro Polidoro, Giorgio Scortichini, Fabio Atturi, Coop Leonardo, Coop Sia A Srl, Marco Lucaferri, Roberto Turchetti, Corrado Mortillaro, Gianrico Lanternari, Sandro Baronciani, Ugo Mecchia, Flavio Meroni, Giuseppina Berchicci, Enrico Poddi, Nicola Solipacca, Franco Perazzola, Agostino Di Sciullo, Sergio Angeletti, Patrizio Tesi, Fabio Carrozi, Tommaso Pagani, Marco Stivoli, Roberto Miglio, Professional Car Service Snc, Massimo Mongiovì, Roberto Corona (C-419/12) and Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (C-420/12)

Defendants: Roma Capitale and Regione Lazio (C-420/12)

In the presence of: UGL Taxi — Unione Generale del Lavoro Taxi and Others, Codacons — Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (C-420/12)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 90 TFEU, of Article 3 TEU read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 5 TFEU and 6 TFEU, and of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Car and driver hire service — National legislation making the provision of that service conditional upon possession of an authorisation issued by the municipal authorities and requiring anyone holding such an authorisation to have the normal base for their vehicle(s) located in the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation and to have a registered office within that territory, and to begin and end the hire in that territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the requests from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) for a preliminary ruling, made by decisions of 20 June 2012 in Joined Cases C-419/12 and C-420/12, to the extent that those requests concern the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU. Those requests are inadmissible to the extent that they concern the interpretation of other provisions of EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Fatorie SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

(Case C-424/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Reverse charge procedure - Right to deduct - Payment of the tax to the service supplier - Omission of mandatory particulars - Payment of VAT not due - Loss of the right to deduct - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Principle of legal certainty)

2014/C 93/17

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Fatorie SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Oradea — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Loss of the right to deduct VAT on the grounds that there was no mention in the invoice of the application of the reverse charge regime — Principle of legal certainty — Decision ordering payment of the amount of VAT wrongly deducted and of interest and of default penalties after an irrevocable decision recognising the right to deduct — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Payment of the VAT incorrectly indicated in an invoice by a third party — No steps taken by the tax authorities with a view to correction of the invoice which it is impossible to put in order ex post.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In a transaction subject to the reverse charge regime, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude the recipient of the services from being deprived of the right to deduct the value added tax which he paid when that tax was not due to the service supplier on the basis of an incorrectly drawn up invoice, even where the correction of that error is impossible because that supplier is insolvent; |
| --- | --- |

1.

In a transaction subject to the reverse charge regime, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude the recipient of the services from being deprived of the right to deduct the value added tax which he paid when that tax was not due to the service supplier on the basis of an incorrectly drawn up invoice, even where the correction of that error is impossible because that supplier is insolvent;

| 2. | The principle of legal certainty does not preclude an administrative practice of the national tax authorities whereby, within a limitation period, they revoke a decision by which they granted the taxable person the right to deduct value added tax and then, following a fresh investigation, order him to pay that tax together with default interest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of legal certainty does not preclude an administrative practice of the national tax authorities whereby, within a limitation period, they revoke a decision by which they granted the taxable person the right to deduct value added tax and then, following a fresh investigation, order him to pay that tax together with default interest.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retriever Sverige AB

(Case C-466/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Meaning - Internet links (‘clickable links’) giving access to protected works)

2014/C 93/18

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd

Defendant: Retriever Sverige AB

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Svea Hovrätt — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Research and monitoring website offering its subscribers a service of access to protected works, in return for payment — Provision by a person other than the author of the work or his assignees of a link on the former’s web page giving access to the work.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision on a website of clickable links to works freely available on another website does not constitute an ‘act of communication to the public’, as referred to in that provision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision on a website of clickable links to works freely available on another website does not constitute an ‘act of communication to the public’, as referred to in that provision;

| 2. | Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from giving wider protection to copyright holders by laying down that the concept of communication to the public includes a wider range of activities than those referred to in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from giving wider protection to copyright holders by laying down that the concept of communication to the public includes a wider range of activities than those referred to in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH

(Case C-479/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 7(1), 11(2), 19(2), 88 and 89(1)(a) and (d) - Unregistered Community design - Protection - Making available to the public - Novelty - Action for infringement - Burden of proof - Extinction of rights over time - Time-barring - Applicable law)

2014/C 93/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 7(1), Article 11(2), Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) — ‘Making available to the public’ — Burden of proving that contested use results from copying the unregistered design — Design presented in showrooms lying beyond the usual field of observation of the profession and then made available to an undertaking in those specialised circles without any conditions of confidentiality — Whether the right to obtain an injunction prohibiting any use by a third party has been extinguished over time — Time-barring — Determining the law applicable to disputes concerning infringement and invalidity of Community designs.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | On a proper construction of Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, it is possible that an unregistered design may reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, if images of the design were distributed to traders operating in that sector, which it is for the Community design court to assess, having regard to the circumstances of the case before it; |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper construction of Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, it is possible that an unregistered design may reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, if images of the design were distributed to traders operating in that sector, which it is for the Community design court to assess, having regard to the circumstances of the case before it;

| 2. | On a proper construction of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, it is possible that an unregistered design may not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, even though it was disclosed to third parties without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, if it has been made available to only one undertaking in that sector or has been presented only in the showrooms of an undertaking outside the European Union, which it is for the Community design court to assess, having regard to the circumstances of the case before it; |
| --- | --- |

2.

On a proper construction of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, it is possible that an unregistered design may not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, even though it was disclosed to third parties without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, if it has been made available to only one undertaking in that sector or has been presented only in the showrooms of an undertaking outside the European Union, which it is for the Community design court to assess, having regard to the circumstances of the case before it;

| 3. | On a proper construction of the first subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, the holder of the protected design must bear the burden of proving that the contested use results from copying that design. However, if a Community design court finds that the fact of requiring that holder to prove that the contested use results from copying that design is likely to make it impossible or excessively difficult for such evidence to be produced, that court is required, in order to ensure observance of the principle of effectiveness, to use all procedures available to it under national law to counter that difficulty, including, where appropriate, rules of national law which provide for the burden of proof to be adjusted or lightened; |
| --- | --- |

3.

On a proper construction of the first subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, the holder of the protected design must bear the burden of proving that the contested use results from copying that design. However, if a Community design court finds that the fact of requiring that holder to prove that the contested use results from copying that design is likely to make it impossible or excessively difficult for such evidence to be produced, that court is required, in order to ensure observance of the principle of effectiveness, to use all procedures available to it under national law to counter that difficulty, including, where appropriate, rules of national law which provide for the burden of proof to be adjusted or lightened;

| 4. | The defences of the extinction of rights over time and of an action being time-barred that may be raised against an action brought on the basis of Articles 19(2) and 89(1)(a) of Regulation No 6/2002 are governed by national law, which must be applied in a manner that observes the principles of equivalence and effectiveness; |
| --- | --- |

4.

The defences of the extinction of rights over time and of an action being time-barred that may be raised against an action brought on the basis of Articles 19(2) and 89(1)(a) of Regulation No 6/2002 are governed by national law, which must be applied in a manner that observes the principles of equivalence and effectiveness;

| 5. | On a proper construction of Article 89(1)(d) of Regulation No 6/2002, claims for the destruction of infringing products are governed by the law of the Member State in which the acts of infringement or threatened infringement have been committed, including its private international law. Claims for compensation for damage resulting from the activities of the person responsible for the acts of infringement or threatened infringement and for disclosure, in order to determine the extent of that damage, of information relating to those activities, are governed, pursuant to Article 88(2) of that regulation, by the national law of the Community design court hearing the proceedings, including its private international law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

On a proper construction of Article 89(1)(d) of Regulation No 6/2002, claims for the destruction of infringing products are governed by the law of the Member State in which the acts of infringement or threatened infringement have been committed, including its private international law. Claims for compensation for damage resulting from the activities of the person responsible for the acts of infringement or threatened infringement and for disclosure, in order to determine the extent of that damage, of information relating to those activities, are governed, pursuant to Article 88(2) of that regulation, by the national law of the Community design court hearing the proceedings, including its private international law.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte, Portugal) — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda

(Case C-509/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Grant of a recreational boating licence - Condition of residency in the issuing country - Restriction for non-residents - Maintaining maritime safety - Public policy)

2014/C 93/20

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos

Defendant: Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal — Interpretation of Articles 18, 20, 45, 52 and 62 TFEU — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Free movement of persons and freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Provision imposing a condition of residency within the national territory for the grant of a recreational boating licence.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a condition of residence within the national territory for European Union citizens seeking to obtain a recreational boating licence in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Mömax Logistik GmbH v Bundesamt für Justiz

(Case C-528/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 78/660/EEC - Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company - Application of the rules on the publication of accounts to companies governed by the law of one Member State and forming part of a group whose parent company is governed by the law of another Member State)

2014/C 93/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mömax Logistik GmbH

Defendant: Bundesamt für Justiz

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Bonn — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU and Article 57(1) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Right of the Member States not to apply to the dependent companies of any group governed by their national laws the provisions of Directive 78/660/EEC concerning the content, auditing and publication of the annual accounts where the dominant company of the group is subject to the laws of a Member State — Legislation of a Member State providing for that possibility where the dominant company is subject to the laws of that Member State and precluding it where it is subject to the laws of another Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006, must be interpreted as precluding the national legislation of a Member State which exempts a subsidiary undertaking governed by the law of that State from the provisions of that directive concerning the content, auditing and publication of annual accounts only if the parent company is also governed by the law of that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-596/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Collective redundancies - Concept of ‘workers’ - Exclusion of ‘dirigenti’ - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) and (2) - Infringement)

2014/C 93/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Varone, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Scope — Concept of workers — Inclusion of managers in that concept.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by excluding, in Article 4(9) of Law No 223 relating to provisions on technical lay-offs, mobility, unemployment benefit, implementation of Community directives, employment services and other provisions relating to the employment market (legge n. 223 — Norme in materia di cassa integrazione, mobilita’, trattamenti di disoccupazione, attuazione di direttive della Comunita’ europea, avviamento al lavoro ed altre disposizioni in materia di mercato del lavoro), of 23 July 1991, the category of ‘dirigenti’ from the scope of Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the Republic of Italy has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 1(1) and (2) of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by excluding, in Article 4(9) of Law No 223 relating to provisions on technical lay-offs, mobility, unemployment benefit, implementation of Community directives, employment services and other provisions relating to the employment market (legge n. 223 — Norme in materia di cassa integrazione, mobilita’, trattamenti di disoccupazione, attuazione di direttive della Comunita’ europea, avviamento al lavoro ed altre disposizioni in materia di mercato del lavoro), of 23 July 1991, the category of ‘dirigenti’ from the scope of Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the Republic of Italy has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 1(1) and (2) of that Directive.

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Italy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-613/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Egypt - Article 20 of Protocol 4 - Proof of origin - Movement certificate EUR.1 - Replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued at a time when the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authority - Refusal to apply preferential treatment)

2014/C 93/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Helm Düngemittel GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 20 of Protocol 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 39), as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU-Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006 (OJ 2006 L 73, p. 1) — Replacement movement certificate issued subsequently, at a point in time at which the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authorities.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2001, approved by Council Decision 2004/635/EC of 21 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the Egyptian origin of goods, within the meaning of the preferential customs arrangement established by that agreement, can be proved even in the case where the goods were divided up when they arrived in a first Member State in order that a portion of them could be sent to a second Member State and where the replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the customs authorities of the first Member State for the portion of those goods sent to the second Member State does not satisfy the conditions for the issuance of such a certificate set out in Article 20 of Protocol 4 to that agreement concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2001, approved by Council Decision 2004/635/EC of 21 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the Egyptian origin of goods, within the meaning of the preferential customs arrangement established by that agreement, can be proved even in the case where the goods were divided up when they arrived in a first Member State in order that a portion of them could be sent to a second Member State and where the replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the customs authorities of the first Member State for the portion of those goods sent to the second Member State does not satisfy the conditions for the issuance of such a certificate set out in Article 20 of Protocol 4 to that agreement concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006.

| 2. | The administration of such proof requires, however, first, that the preferential origin of the goods initially imported from Egypt be established by means of a movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the Egyptian customs authorities in accordance with that protocol and, second, that the importer prove that the portion of the goods divided up in that first Member State and dispatched to the second Member State corresponds to a portion of the goods imported from Egypt into the first Member State. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The administration of such proof requires, however, first, that the preferential origin of the goods initially imported from Egypt be established by means of a movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the Egyptian customs authorities in accordance with that protocol and, second, that the importer prove that the portion of the goods divided up in that first Member State and dispatched to the second Member State corresponds to a portion of the goods imported from Egypt into the first Member State. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2003.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupréau SAS

(Case C-2/13) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Chapter 64 - Import of components required for the manufacture of sports footwear - Heading 6404 - Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials - Heading 6406 - Parts of footwear - General Rule 2(a) for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature - Incomplete or unfinished article having the ‘essential character of the complete or finished article’ - Article ‘presented unassembled or disassembled’ - Explanatory Note for the interpretation of the Harmonised System - Assembly operations and not ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’)

2014/C 93/24

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

Defendant: Humeau Beaupréau SAS

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(a) to the General Rule for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and of paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Footwear manufacturing process — Assembly operations or working operations for completion into the finished state.

Operative part of the judgment

General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version in force at the material time, must be interpreted as meaning that an upper, an outer sole and an inner sole, as an article presented unassembled having the essential character of footwear, come under heading 6404 of the combined nomenclature where, following their import, a counter must be inserted into the upper and the outer sole and the upper must be roughed for the purpose of their assembly.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Maks Pen EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia, formerly Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Sofia

(Case C-18/13) (1)

(Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Supplies made - Tax inspection - Supplier not having the necessary resources - Concept of tax evasion - Obligation to make a finding of tax evasion of the court’s own motion - Requirement that the service actually be supplied - Requirement to keep accounts in sufficient detail - Legal proceedings - National court prohibited from classifying the tax evasion as a criminal offence and adversely affecting the applicant’s situation)

2014/C 93/25

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maks Pen EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia, formerly Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Sofia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Arts 63, 178(1)(a), 226(1), point 6, and 242 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of ‘tax evasion’ — Reference on the invoice to a supplier not having the personnel, equipment or assets required to supply the service — No accounting records — False documents drawn up to attest that the supply was made — Obligation on the national court to find of its own motion that there was tax evasion — Right to deduct subject to the requirement that a supply actually be made — Requirement to observe international accounting rules in order to satisfy the requirements of keeping accounts in sufficient detail to allow the right to deduct to be checked — Potential need to include in the invoices information regarding the actual supply of the service — National legislation deeming the service to be supplied when the conditions required for recognition of the revenue arising from that service are satisfied in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person from deducting the value added tax included in the invoices issued by a supplier where, although the supply was made, it is apparent that it was not actually made by that supplier or by its sub-contractor, inter alia because they did not have the personnel, equipment or assets required, there was no record of the costs of making the supply in their accounts and the identification of persons signing certain documents as the suppliers was shown to be inaccurate, subject to the twofold condition that such facts constitute fraudulent conduct and that it is established, in the light of the objective evidence provided by the tax authorities, that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction relied on to give entitlement to the right to deduct was connected with that fraud, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person from deducting the value added tax included in the invoices issued by a supplier where, although the supply was made, it is apparent that it was not actually made by that supplier or by its sub-contractor, inter alia because they did not have the personnel, equipment or assets required, there was no record of the costs of making the supply in their accounts and the identification of persons signing certain documents as the suppliers was shown to be inaccurate, subject to the twofold condition that such facts constitute fraudulent conduct and that it is established, in the light of the objective evidence provided by the tax authorities, that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction relied on to give entitlement to the right to deduct was connected with that fraud, which it is for the referring court to determine.

| 2. | Where the national courts must or may raise of their own motion points of law based on binding rules of national law, they must do so in relation to a binding rule of EU law such as that which requires that the national courts and authorities refuse entitlement to the right to deduct value added tax where it is established, in the light of objective evidence, that that right is being relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends. It is incumbent on those courts, in the assessment of whether that right to deduct was relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends, to interpret the national law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Directive 2006/112, in order to achieve the result sought by that directive, which requires that they do whatever lies within their jurisdiction, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by that law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where the national courts must or may raise of their own motion points of law based on binding rules of national law, they must do so in relation to a binding rule of EU law such as that which requires that the national courts and authorities refuse entitlement to the right to deduct value added tax where it is established, in the light of objective evidence, that that right is being relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends. It is incumbent on those courts, in the assessment of whether that right to deduct was relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends, to interpret the national law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Directive 2006/112, in order to achieve the result sought by that directive, which requires that they do whatever lies within their jurisdiction, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by that law.

| 3. | Directive 2006/112, by requiring in particular, pursuant to Article 242 thereof, that any taxable person keep accounts in sufficient detail to allow the value added tax to be applied and its application checked by the tax authorities, must be interpreted as not precluding the Member State concerned, within the limits provided for in Article 273 of that directive, from requiring that any taxable person observe in that regard all the national accounting rules consistent with international accounting standards, provided that the measures adopted to that effect do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring the correct levying and collection of the tax and preventing tax evasion. In that regard, Directive 2006/112 precludes a national provision according to which a service is deemed to have been supplied at the time when the conditions governing recognition of the revenue arising from that service are satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Directive 2006/112, by requiring in particular, pursuant to Article 242 thereof, that any taxable person keep accounts in sufficient detail to allow the value added tax to be applied and its application checked by the tax authorities, must be interpreted as not precluding the Member State concerned, within the limits provided for in Article 273 of that directive, from requiring that any taxable person observe in that regard all the national accounting rules consistent with international accounting standards, provided that the measures adopted to that effect do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring the correct levying and collection of the tax and preventing tax evasion. In that regard, Directive 2006/112 precludes a national provision according to which a service is deemed to have been supplied at the time when the conditions governing recognition of the revenue arising from that service are satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Hungary v European Commission, Slovak Republic

(Case C-31/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Protected geographical indications - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine - E-Bacchus database - Tokaj)

2014/C 93/26

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, B. Schima and B. Eggers, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by B. Ricziová, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2012 in Case T-194/10 Hungary v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible an application for cancellation of the entry of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblast’ Tokaj’, with Slovakia indicated as country of origin, in the electronic register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine (E-Bacchus database) — Legal effects of an entry in the E-Bacchus database — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of sound administration, sincere cooperation and legal certainty.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Hungary to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

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

3.

Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy)) — Mediaset SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

(Case C-69/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Subsidised purchase or renting of digital decoders - Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Quantification of the amount to be recovered - Role of the national court - Taking into consideration by the national court of the positions of the Commission in the enforcement of its decision - Principle of cooperation in good faith)

2014/C 93/27

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mediaset SpA

Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Roma — Recovery of unlawful State aid — Quantification of the amount to be recovered — Commission decision laying down criteria for determining that amount — Judgment of the Court recognising that the national court has the power to assess whether the criteria laid down by the Commission are appropriate — Extent of the national court’s discretion.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Although, in order to ensure that a European Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of the aid in question, but not identifying the individual recipients of that aid and not determining the precise amounts to be recovered is executed, the national court is bound by that decision, it is not, however, bound by the positions adopted by that institution in the execution of that decision. Nevertheless, under the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, the national court must take the statements of position into account as a factor in the assessment of the dispute before it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Although, in order to ensure that a European Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of the aid in question, but not identifying the individual recipients of that aid and not determining the precise amounts to be recovered is executed, the national court is bound by that decision, it is not, however, bound by the positions adopted by that institution in the execution of that decision. Nevertheless, under the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, the national court must take the statements of position into account as a factor in the assessment of the dispute before it.

| 2. | The national court, when determining the exact amounts of aid to be recovered and where the European Commission, in its decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market, has not identified the individual recipients of the aid in question or determined the precise amounts to be repaid, may conclude, without calling into question the validity of the European Commission’s decision or the obligation to repay the aid in question, that the amount of aid to be repaid is equal to zero where that follows from the calculations made on the basis of all the relevant information of which it has been made aware. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The national court, when determining the exact amounts of aid to be recovered and where the European Commission, in its decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market, has not identified the individual recipients of the aid in question or determined the precise amounts to be repaid, may conclude, without calling into question the validity of the European Commission’s decision or the obligation to repay the aid in question, that the amount of aid to be repaid is equal to zero where that follows from the calculations made on the basis of all the relevant information of which it has been made aware.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA,

(Case C-98/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation No 1383/2003 - Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market - Article 2 - Scope of the Regulation - Private sale by internet of a counterfeit watch from a non-member country to an individual residing in a Member State - Seizure of the watch by the customs authorities on entry into the territory of the Member State - Lawfulness of seizure - Conditions - Conditions relating to infringement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4 - Distribution to the public - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Use in the course of trade)

2014/C 93/28

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Blomqvist

Defendants: Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA,

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10), Article 5(1) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25), Article 9(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and Article 2(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Individual residing in a Member State who bought a counterfeit watch for private use from the website of a seller from a non-member country — Seizure of that watch sent by post to the buyer, and suspension of customs clearance of the watch by the authorities of that Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an intellectual property right over goods sold to a person residing in the territory of a Member State through an online sales website in a non-member country enjoys the protection afforded to that holder by that regulation at the time when those goods enter the territory of that Member State merely by virtue of the acquisition of those goods. It is not necessary, in addition, for the goods at issue to have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or advertising targeting consumers of that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-139/13) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Area of freedom, security and justice - Standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States - Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Biometric passport - Inclusion of digital fingerprints - Failure to implement - Failure to issue within the prescribed periods)

2014/C 93/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Maidani and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1) — Biometric passports containing digital fingerprints — Failure to issue such passports within the prescribed periods laid down by that regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by having failed to implement, in the prescribed period, the technical specifications relating to issuing biometric passports containing digital fingerprints, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by having failed to implement, in the prescribed period, the technical specifications relating to issuing biometric passports containing digital fingerprints, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 01.6.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/19

---

Action brought on 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-653/13)

2014/C 93/30

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-297/08 Commission v Italy [2010], in which it was held that, by failing to adopt, for the region of Campania, all the measures necessary to ensure that waste is recovered and disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment and, in particular, by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-297/08 Commission v Italy [2010], in which it was held that, by failing to adopt, for the region of Campania, all the measures necessary to ensure that waste is recovered and disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment and, in particular, by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC; (1)

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a daily penalty of EUR 256 819,20 (that is, EUR 85 606,40 per day per installation category), minus any reductions which may follow from the gradual reduction formula proposed, from the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-297/08 is complied with; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a daily penalty of EUR 256 819,20 (that is, EUR 85 606,40 per day per installation category), minus any reductions which may follow from the gradual reduction formula proposed, from the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-297/08 is complied with;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a lump sum, that sum being the product of multiplying a daily sum of EUR 28 089,60 by the number of days of continued infringement from the day on which the judgment in Case C-297/08 was delivered until the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a lump sum, that sum being the product of multiplying a daily sum of EUR 28 089,60 by the number of days of continued infringement from the day on which the judgment in Case C-297/08 was delivered until the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that Italy has failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-297/08. According to the Commission, the proposed penalty (a daily penalty payment plus a lump sum payment) is commensurate with the seriousness and duration of the infringement and takes into account the need to ensure that the penalty is a deterrent against further infringements.

---

(1)  Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 11, p. 9).

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Portuguese State v Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação

(Case C-667/13)

2014/C 93/31

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Portuguese State

Defendant: Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the Decision (1) vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons on the ground that:






  (a) | it failed to state the reason why the guarantee provided by the Portuguese State affects trade between Member States? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is the Decision (1) vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons on the ground that:

(a)

it failed to state the reason why the guarantee provided by the Portuguese State affects trade between Member States?

| (b) | it failed to specify the reason why the aid granted in the form of a guarantee, which was initially considered to be covered by Article 107(3) TFEU, was then declared to be incompatible with the common market? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

it failed to specify the reason why the aid granted in the form of a guarantee, which was initially considered to be covered by Article 107(3) TFEU, was then declared to be incompatible with the common market?

| 2. | Is the Decision vitiated by a contradiction between its statement of reasons and its enacting terms as to the date from which the [aid] is to be considered unlawful: 5 December 2008 or 5 June 2009? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Decision vitiated by a contradiction between its statement of reasons and its enacting terms as to the date from which the [aid] is to be considered unlawful: 5 December 2008 or 5 June 2009?

| 3. | Does the Decision infringe Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as the aid granted did not affect trade between Member States, particularly in view of the purpose of the loan and the actual use made of it and the fact that the beneficiary has not carried out its activities since 1 December 2008? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Decision infringe Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as the aid granted did not affect trade between Member States, particularly in view of the purpose of the loan and the actual use made of it and the fact that the beneficiary has not carried out its activities since 1 December 2008?

| 4. | Does the decision infringe Article 107(3) TFEU, insofar as the aid was intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and, as such, is compatible with the common market? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the decision infringe Article 107(3) TFEU, insofar as the aid was intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and, as such, is compatible with the common market?

| 5. | Do paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2) preclude, in this specific case, a reduction in the amount to be recovered, when that provision is applicable, without discrimination, to all creditors of the insolvent company? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2) preclude, in this specific case, a reduction in the amount to be recovered, when that provision is applicable, without discrimination, to all creditors of the insolvent company?

---

(1)  2011/346/EU: Commission Decision of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C-33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (notified under document C(2010) 4932) — OJ 2011 L 159, p. 95.

(2)  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.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería v Samir Zaizoune

(Case C-38/14)

2014/C 93/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería

Other party: Samir Zaizoune

Question referred

In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, must Articles 4(2), 4(3) and 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation, such as the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings and the case-law which interprets it, pursuant to which the illegal stay of a foreign national may be punishable just by a financial penalty, which, moreover, may not be imposed concurrently with the penalty of removal?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 3 February 2014 — CASTA and Others v A.S.L. di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4) and Regione Piemonte

(Case C-50/14)

2014/C 93/33

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Consorzio Artigiano Servizio Taxi e Autonoleggio (CASTA), Galati Lucimorto Roberto — Autonoleggio Galati, Seren Bernardone Guido — Autonoleggio Seren Guido

Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4), Regione Piemonte

Questions referred

| 1. | Does European Union public procurement law — in the case under examination, concerning excluded contracts and the general principles of free competition, equal treatment, transparency and proportionality — preclude national legislation under which contracts for the provision of ambulance and health-related transport services may be awarded directly to voluntary organisations organised predominantly on the basis of unpaid work and in return for genuine reimbursement of costs? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does European Union public procurement law — in the case under examination, concerning excluded contracts and the general principles of free competition, equal treatment, transparency and proportionality — preclude national legislation under which contracts for the provision of ambulance and health-related transport services may be awarded directly to voluntary organisations organised predominantly on the basis of unpaid work and in return for genuine reimbursement of costs?

| 2. | If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, must there be a prior comparison of tenders from several homogeneous (and possibly also Community) operators and recipients of a direct award in order to limit the risk of exposure to inefficient and unreasonable costs, and must the national law under which direct awards are permitted accordingly be construed to that effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, must there be a prior comparison of tenders from several homogeneous (and possibly also Community) operators and recipients of a direct award in order to limit the risk of exposure to inefficient and unreasonable costs, and must the national law under which direct awards are permitted accordingly be construed to that effect?

| 3. | If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, must voluntary organisations which receive direct awards be subject to precise percentage limits on parallel access to the market, and must the provision of national law under which the commercial activity of those organisations has to be marginal accordingly be construed to that effect? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, must voluntary organisations which receive direct awards be subject to precise percentage limits on parallel access to the market, and must the provision of national law under which the commercial activity of those organisations has to be marginal accordingly be construed to that effect?

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/21

---

Action brought on 6 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-60/14)

2014/C 93/34

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and Ι. Zerbas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision (1) of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, since it has not taken within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of unlawful State aid from the Casinos of Mont Parnès, Corfu and Thessaloniki, and, in any event, since it has not fully informed the Commission of the exact amount to be recovered (principal and interest) from all the beneficiaries of the unlawful State aid and of the other measures which it took in accordance with Article 4 of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision (1) of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, since it has not taken within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of unlawful State aid from the Casinos of Mont Parnès, Corfu and Thessaloniki, and, in any event, since it has not fully informed the Commission of the exact amount to be recovered (principal and interest) from all the beneficiaries of the unlawful State aid and of the other measures which it took in accordance with Article 4 of the Decision;

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have recovered the unlawful State aid by 25 September 2011. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have recovered the unlawful State aid by 25 September 2011.

| 2. | The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have informed the Commission of the action which it has undertaken in order to recover the unlawful State aid, and the total amount to be recovered, by 25 July 2011. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have informed the Commission of the action which it has undertaken in order to recover the unlawful State aid, and the total amount to be recovered, by 25 July 2011.

| 3. | The Hellenic Republic has not fulfilled any of the above obligations within the prescribed time-limits. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Hellenic Republic has not fulfilled any of the above obligations within the prescribed time-limits.

---

(1)  Decision of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C-16/10 implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, pp 25-45)

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/21

---

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

(Case C-73/14)

2014/C 93/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Finnegan, R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2013 to submit a ‘Written statement by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union’ to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 21 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2013 to submit a ‘Written statement by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union’ to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 21 (1); and

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

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | By means of this application, the Council respectfully requests the Court to annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2013 to submit the ‘Written statement on behalf of the European Union’ to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 21 (the ‘Contested Decision’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

By means of this application, the Council respectfully requests the Court to annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2013 to submit the ‘Written statement on behalf of the European Union’ to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 21 (the ‘Contested Decision’).

| 2. | The Council considers that the Contested Decision, which was submitted by the Commission without the Council's approval and against the Council's will, is illegal because it infringes fundamental principles of Union law enshrined in the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council considers that the Contested Decision, which was submitted by the Commission without the Council's approval and against the Council's will, is illegal because it infringes fundamental principles of Union law enshrined in the Treaties.

| 3. | The Council raises two pleas in law in support of its claim for annulment of the Contested Decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council raises two pleas in law in support of its claim for annulment of the Contested Decision.

| 4. | First, by adopting the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of distribution of powers enshrined in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance (first plea in law). Under the first limb of that plea, the Council submits that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is a body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which adopts acts having legal effects and that, consequently, the position to be expressed on behalf of the Union before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea should have been established by the Council in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU. Under the second limb of the first plea, the Council considers that, in any event, the Commission infringed Article 16(1) TEU by usurping for itself the policy-making functions which, under that Treaty provision, belong to the Council alone. |
| --- | --- |

4.

First, by adopting the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of distribution of powers enshrined in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance (first plea in law). Under the first limb of that plea, the Council submits that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is a body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which adopts acts having legal effects and that, consequently, the position to be expressed on behalf of the Union before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea should have been established by the Council in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU. Under the second limb of the first plea, the Council considers that, in any event, the Commission infringed Article 16(1) TEU by usurping for itself the policy-making functions which, under that Treaty provision, belong to the Council alone.

| 5. | Secondly, by undertaking the course of action leading to the adoption of the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 13(2)TEU (second plea in law). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Secondly, by undertaking the course of action leading to the adoption of the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 13(2)TEU (second plea in law).

---

(1)  The Council does not request, at this juncture, the annulment of the Commission Statement to the Tribunal.

---

General Court

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM (La qualité est la meilleure des recettes)

(Case T-570/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark La qualité est la meilleure des recettes - Mark constituted by an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 93/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: F. Graf von Stosch, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2011 (Case R 1798/2010-G) concerning an application for registration of word sign La qualité est la meilleure des recettes as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Beco v Commission

(Case T-81/12) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in China and Taiwan - Application for recovery of charges levied - Second subparagraph of Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Legal certainty)

2014/C 93/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Beco Metallteile-Handels GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9112 final of 13 December 2011, concerning an application for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 9112 final of 13 December 2011, concerning an application for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 9112 final of 13 December 2011, concerning an application for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line (DEMON)

(Case T-380/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark DEMON - Prior international word mark DEMON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 93/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Demon International (Orem, Utah, United States) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: F. Mattina, and subsequently by: L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 June 2012 (Case R 1845/2011-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Demon International, LC and Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 June 2012 (Case R 1845/2001-4) insofar as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark No 6 375 398 concerning ‘ski masks’ and ‘snowboard masks’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 June 2012 (Case R 1845/2001-4) insofar as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark No 6 375 398 concerning ‘ski masks’ and ‘snowboard masks’;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Demon International, LC and Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo to bear their own costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Demon International, LC and Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo to bear their own costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal;

| 4. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (CALDEA)

(Case T-26/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CALDEA - Earlier international word mark BALEA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 93/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky, B. Beinert and A. Bender, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Semtee (Escaldes Engordany, Andorra)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2012 (Case R 2432/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Semtee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/23

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 January 2014 — Romonta v Commission

(Case T-614/13 R)

(Interim measures - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - System of exchange of greenhouse gas emission allowances - Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 - Application for recognition of hardship - Lack of urgency)

2014/C 93/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Romonta GmbH (Amsdorf, Seebebiet Mansfelder Land, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke, M. Vollmer, C. Telschow and A. Schultze, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as the allocation of emission allowances to the applicant for hardship is refused.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/23

---

Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Deloitte Consulting v Commission

(Case T-688/13)

2014/C 93/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deloitte Consulting CVBA (Diegem, Belgium) (represented by: K. De hornois and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Decision of the Defendant to select the tender of the Applicant as fourth cascade contractor in the context of the Call for Tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/004 ABC III — Information and Communication Technology Advice, Benchmarking and Consulting Services (Lot 2) communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 15 October 2013 and to award the contract to the consortia PWC-EVERIS as first contractor, KPMG-TRASYS-KURT SALMON as second contractor and CGI Accenture as third contractor; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Defendant to select the tender of the Applicant as fourth cascade contractor in the context of the Call for Tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/004 ABC III — Information and Communication Technology Advice, Benchmarking and Consulting Services (Lot 2) communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 15 October 2013 and to award the contract to the consortia PWC-EVERIS as first contractor, KPMG-TRASYS-KURT SALMON as second contractor and CGI Accenture as third contractor;

| — | Annul at least the attacked Decision for as much as it did not exclude the first cascade contractor PWC-EVERIS for having included information on its financial offer within its technical offer; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul at least the attacked Decision for as much as it did not exclude the first cascade contractor PWC-EVERIS for having included information on its financial offer within its technical offer;

| — | Order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s damages suffered for loss of the contract or alternatively for loss of opportunity on account of the tendering procedure in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s damages suffered for loss of the contract or alternatively for loss of opportunity on account of the tendering procedure in question;

| — | Order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and non-disclosure of the relative merits of the successful tenderers — art. 113 par. 2 of the Financial Regulation and of Article 161 par. 2 and 3 of the Delegated Regulation and infringement of an essential procedural requirement- of the principle of the right to an effective remedy;






  — | Although the subject matter of the tender being of high technical complexity and strategic importance, the content of the extracts of the Evaluation Report are short, superficial, simplistic, lacking indication of the strong and weak points of the evaluated tenders, limited to ‘qualifications’ without describing at all the substance of the answer. For some of the sub-criteria there is absolutely no motivation explaining the scores of the tenderers whereas the comments of the Evaluation Committee are often inconsistent with the scores awarded to the different tenderers. The deficiencies of the motivation of the attacked Decision impede the judicial review of the contested Decision, infringing the principle of the right to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and non-disclosure of the relative merits of the successful tenderers — art. 113 par. 2 of the Financial Regulation and of Article 161 par. 2 and 3 of the Delegated Regulation and infringement of an essential procedural requirement- of the principle of the right to an effective remedy;

—

Although the subject matter of the tender being of high technical complexity and strategic importance, the content of the extracts of the Evaluation Report are short, superficial, simplistic, lacking indication of the strong and weak points of the evaluated tenders, limited to ‘qualifications’ without describing at all the substance of the answer. For some of the sub-criteria there is absolutely no motivation explaining the scores of the tenderers whereas the comments of the Evaluation Committee are often inconsistent with the scores awarded to the different tenderers. The deficiencies of the motivation of the attacked Decision impede the judicial review of the contested Decision, infringing the principle of the right to an effective remedy.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to use clear award criteria, based on which the contract can be awarded objectively; Violation of the distinction between selection criteria and award criteria;






  — | The Technical Specifications consist of a considerable amount of vague sub-criteria. Hence, well informed and normally diligent tenderers are not able to interpret the specific award criterion. There is no clear indication on what would constitute a good or less good approach nor is there a qualitative element demonstrating which indicators could lead to a better or worse result. Furthermore, the Evaluation report contains a reference to selection criteria, which have been used to evaluate the technical proposal of the tenderers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to use clear award criteria, based on which the contract can be awarded objectively; Violation of the distinction between selection criteria and award criteria;

—

The Technical Specifications consist of a considerable amount of vague sub-criteria. Hence, well informed and normally diligent tenderers are not able to interpret the specific award criterion. There is no clear indication on what would constitute a good or less good approach nor is there a qualitative element demonstrating which indicators could lead to a better or worse result. Furthermore, the Evaluation report contains a reference to selection criteria, which have been used to evaluate the technical proposal of the tenderers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the tender specifications. Infringement of the principles of Transparency and Good Administration — Infringement of the Instructions to the tenders — reference of price within the technical offer;






  — | One of the winning tenderers revealed important financial elements in the technical section of the tender, leading to the latter being inadmissible, since it infringed specific provisions of the Tender Specifications as well as the principle of non-discrimination and the Guidebook for Public Procurement of DIGIT that applies to the current case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the tender specifications. Infringement of the principles of Transparency and Good Administration — Infringement of the Instructions to the tenders — reference of price within the technical offer;

—

One of the winning tenderers revealed important financial elements in the technical section of the tender, leading to the latter being inadmissible, since it infringed specific provisions of the Tender Specifications as well as the principle of non-discrimination and the Guidebook for Public Procurement of DIGIT that applies to the current case.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 (1a) of the Financial Regulation and of section 5.2.3.2. of the Tender Specifications — a conflict of interest;






  — | Following article 107 of the Financial Regulation, the Defendant should assess whether the tenderers are subject to a conflict of interest during the procurement procedure for the framework contract, contrary to the case-by-case assessment during the execution of the framework contract that the Defendant privileges in this case. Any tenderer who was subject to a conflict of interest, as described during the award procedure, should have been excluded before the award of the framework contract and not, as the Defendant privileges itself in this case, on a case-by-case basis during the execution of the contract. Section 5.2.3.2. of the Tender Specifications is a requirement even more stringent than the conflict of interest as defined in article 107 of the Financial Regulation. Based on the above, the Defendant should have rejected some of the winning tenderers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 (1a) of the Financial Regulation and of section 5.2.3.2. of the Tender Specifications — a conflict of interest;

—

Following article 107 of the Financial Regulation, the Defendant should assess whether the tenderers are subject to a conflict of interest during the procurement procedure for the framework contract, contrary to the case-by-case assessment during the execution of the framework contract that the Defendant privileges in this case. Any tenderer who was subject to a conflict of interest, as described during the award procedure, should have been excluded before the award of the framework contract and not, as the Defendant privileges itself in this case, on a case-by-case basis during the execution of the contract. Section 5.2.3.2. of the Tender Specifications is a requirement even more stringent than the conflict of interest as defined in article 107 of the Financial Regulation. Based on the above, the Defendant should have rejected some of the winning tenderers.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/25

---

Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Mikhalchanka v Council

(Case T-693/13)

2014/C 93/42

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aliaksei Mikhalchanka (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence, since the prior inter partes procedure was not respected by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence, since the prior inter partes procedure was not respected by the Council.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning, since the reasons for the measures do not allow the applicant to contest their validity before the General Court and the latter to exercise its review of their lawfulness. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning, since the reasons for the measures do not allow the applicant to contest their validity before the General Court and the latter to exercise its review of their lawfulness.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, in so far as the contested measure lacks all factual justification. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, in so far as the contested measure lacks all factual justification.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in particular with regard to the restriction on entry into, and transit through, the territory of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in particular with regard to the restriction on entry into, and transit through, the territory of the European Union.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/25

---

Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Ipatau v Council

(Case T-694/13)

2014/C 93/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-693/13 Mikhalchanka v Council.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/25

---

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)

(Case T-697/13)

2014/C 93/44

Language in which the application was lodged: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kinnarps AB (Falköping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 in Case R 2272/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 in Case R 2272/2012-2;

| — | Declare that the applicant’s trade mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK, in respect of the goods and services claimed in the case, has the necessary distinctive character for registration as a Community trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the applicant’s trade mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK, in respect of the goods and services claimed in the case, has the necessary distinctive character for registration as a Community trade mark;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before both the General Court and OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before both the General Court and OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 20, 35 and 42 — application for registration of a Community trade mark No 10 887 982

Decision of the Examiners: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Failure to have regard to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/26

---

Appeal brought on 8 January 2014 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12, Schönberger v Court of Auditors

(Case T-26/14 P)

2014/C 93/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12 (Schönberger v Court of Auditors); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12 (Schönberger v Court of Auditors);

| — | allow the applicant’s claims at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the applicant’s claims at first instance;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal: The Civil Service Tribunal failed to give a ruling on the first plea in law, according to which, with only three positions available for promotions in the promotion year 2011, the five-year average for 2007 until 2011 stated in the Staff Regulations was missed by 10 positions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal: The Civil Service Tribunal failed to give a ruling on the first plea in law, according to which, with only three positions available for promotions in the promotion year 2011, the five-year average for 2007 until 2011 stated in the Staff Regulations was missed by 10 positions.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal: The appellant claims that, by declaring the promotion years 2010 until 2014 to be the five-year period at issue, the judgment under appeal distorts the position of the parties. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal: The appellant claims that, by declaring the promotion years 2010 until 2014 to be the five-year period at issue, the judgment under appeal distorts the position of the parties.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal: The appellant submits that the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed because he was not given an opportunity to comment on the five-year period considered relevant by the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal: The appellant submits that the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed because he was not given an opportunity to comment on the five-year period considered relevant by the Civil Service Tribunal.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal: The appellant alleges a failure to state reasons because the judgment under appeal does not explain why the five-year period from 2010 until 2014 must be accepted as the reference period. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal: The appellant alleges a failure to state reasons because the judgment under appeal does not explain why the five-year period from 2010 until 2014 must be accepted as the reference period.

| 5. | Fifth ground of appeal: The appellant complains that, by its interpretation of the Staff Regulations, the Civil Service Tribunal goes against the clearly-expressed intention of the legislature to start with a new five-year period in the year 2014. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth ground of appeal: The appellant complains that, by its interpretation of the Staff Regulations, the Civil Service Tribunal goes against the clearly-expressed intention of the legislature to start with a new five-year period in the year 2014.

| 6. | Sixth ground of appeal: The appellant complains here that, by basing its judgment on an interpretation of the Staff Regulations which was explicitly rejected by the defendant, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth ground of appeal: The appellant complains here that, by basing its judgment on an interpretation of the Staff Regulations which was explicitly rejected by the defendant, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

| 7. | Seventh ground of appeal: The appellant claims that the principle of equal treatment was applied incorrectly and not in accordance with settled case-law. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh ground of appeal: The appellant claims that the principle of equal treatment was applied incorrectly and not in accordance with settled case-law.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/26

---

Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission

(Case T-44/14)

2014/C 93/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bruno Costantini (Jesi, Italy), Robert Racke (Lamadelaine, Luxembourg), Pietro Pravata (Beyne-Heusay, Belgium), Zbigniew Galązka (Łódź, Poland), Justo Santos Domínguez (Leganés, Spain), Maria Isabel Lemos (Mealhada, Portugal), André Clavelou (Vincennes, France), Citizens' Committee ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and Independence is a fundamental right!’, (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer and A. Woods, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2013 refusing to register Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Initiative) pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1), as communicated to the representative and substitute representative of the applicants on 5 November 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘C(2013) 7612 final’ (Contested Decision); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2013 refusing to register Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Initiative) pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1), as communicated to the representative and substitute representative of the applicants on 5 November 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘C(2013) 7612 final’ (Contested Decision); and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of any intervening party. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, when it refused to register the Initiative, misapplied the proper legal test of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 by (i) incorrectly establishing that the Initiative’s objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and (ii) by not taking into account the underlying principles of the Regulation No 211/2011. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, when it refused to register the Initiative, misapplied the proper legal test of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 by (i) incorrectly establishing that the Initiative’s objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and (ii) by not taking into account the underlying principles of the Regulation No 211/2011.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to respect the general principles of good administration by refusing the registration of the Initiative, while it has registered citizens’ initiatives that intend to achieve a similar type of objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to respect the general principles of good administration by refusing the registration of the Initiative, while it has registered citizens’ initiatives that intend to achieve a similar type of objectives.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU.

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/27

---

Action brought on 22 January 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-51/14)

2014/C 93/47

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, J. Vikáková, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the implementing decision of the European Commission C(2013) 7615 of 13 November 2013 on the rejection of an application for entry in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (Pomazánkové máslo (TSG)) and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implementing decision of the European Commission C(2013) 7615 of 13 November 2013 on the rejection of an application for entry in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (Pomazánkové máslo (TSG)) and

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging the infringement of Articles 50 and 52 of Regulation No 1151/2012 in conjunction with Article 18 thereof. The applicant submits that the Commission did not scrutinise whether the conditions were met for the entry of the name ‘Pomazánkové máslo’ as a traditional speciality guaranteed and rejected the application in question for a reason other than the fact that it did not meet those conditions.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/27

---

Action brought on 27 January 2014 — BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO)

(Case T-60/14)

2014/C 93/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Von Fuchs and I. Czernik, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delek Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands)

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 22 November 2013 in Case R 382/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2013 in Case R 382/2013-4;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings;

| — | in the alternative, if the intervener does not declare its participation in the proceedings, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the intervener does not declare its participation in the proceedings, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Delek Europe BV

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘GO’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 36 (Community trade mark application No 9 995 201)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘GO’, for goods and services in Classes 4, 19, 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/28

---

Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

(Case T-64/14)

2014/C 93/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3);

| — | Declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP (1) of 10 October 2013 and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 (2) of 10 October 2013 (‘the October Measures’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP (1) of 10 October 2013 and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 (2) of 10 October 2013 (‘the October Measures’);

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the October Measures should be declared inapplicable in so far as they apply to the applicant, and they have no proper legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the October Measures should be declared inapplicable in so far as they apply to the applicant, and they have no proper legal basis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata, and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata, and non-discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached its duty to give reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached its duty to give reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s rights of defence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in its assessment that any of the listing criteria are fulfilled as regards the applicant, and has failed to provide any evidence justifying the applicant’s designation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in its assessment that any of the listing criteria are fulfilled as regards the applicant, and has failed to provide any evidence justifying the applicant’s designation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to respect for reputation and property. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to respect for reputation and property.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting the applicant in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting the applicant in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46)

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1)

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/29

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2014 — Moës v Commission

(Case F-20/13) (1)

2014/C 93/50

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013, p. 48.

---