# Official Journal C 135/5 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 135 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 575 May 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 135

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 575 May 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 135/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 129, 28.4.2014 | 1 |
| 2014/C 135/02 | Decision of the Court of Justice of 25 March 2014 concerning the official holidays and the judicial vacations | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 135/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 129, 28.4.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

1

2014/C 135/02

Decision of the Court of Justice of 25 March 2014 concerning the official holidays and the judicial vacations

2

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 135/03 | Case C-222/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet (Road transport  — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006  — Obligation to use a tachograph  — Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance  — Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site) | 3 |
| 2014/C 135/04 | Case C-366/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Sixth VAT Directive  — Exemptions  — Article 13A(1)(b)  — Supply of goods  — Supply of cytostatic drugs for the treatment of outpatients  — Services provided by different taxable persons  — Article 13A(1)(c)  — Provision of medical care  — Drugs prescribed by a doctor working in an independent capacity in a hospital  — Closely related activities  — Services ancillary to the provision of medical care  — Activities physically and economically indissociable) | 4 |
| 2014/C 135/05 | Case C-375/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Grenoble — France) — Margaretha Bouanich v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme (Reference for a preliminary ruling  — Article 63 TFEU  — Free movement of capital  — Article 49 TFEU  — Freedom of establishment  — Tax on income of natural persons  — Mechanism capping direct taxes by reference to income  — Bilateral tax agreement for avoidance of double taxation  — Taxation of dividends distributed by a company established in another Member State and already subject to a withholding tax  — Failure to take into account or partial taking into account of the tax paid in the other Member State for the calculation of the tax cap  — Article 65 TFEU  — Restriction  — Justification) | 5 |
| 2014/C 135/06 | Case C-456/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — O v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v B (Directive 2004/38/EC  — Article 21(1) TFEU  — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States  — Beneficiaries  — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national  — Return of the Union citizen to that Member State after short periods of residence spent in another Member State) | 6 |
| 2014/C 135/07 | Case C-457/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G (Articles 20 TFEU, 21(1) TFEU and 45 TFEU  — Directive 2004/38/EC  — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States  — Beneficiaries  — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national  — Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he is a national  — Professional activities  — Regular travel to another Member State) | 7 |
| 2014/C 135/08 | Case C-464/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — ATP PensionService A/S v The Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive  — Exemptions  — Article 13B(d)(3) and (6)  — Special investment funds  — Occupational pension schemes  — Management  — Transactions concerning deposit and current accounts, payments or transfers) | 8 |
| 2014/C 135/09 | Case C-512/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Octapharma France SAS v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (Approximation of laws  — Directive 2001/83/EC  — Directive 2002/98/EC  — Scope  — Labile blood product  — Plasma prepared by means of an industrial process  — Simultaneous or exclusive application of the directives  — Option for a Member State to provide for a less rigorous regime for plasma than for medicinal products) | 9 |
| 2014/C 135/10 | Case C-548/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf (Area of freedom, security and justice  — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters  — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction  — Article 5(1) and (3)  — Civil liability claim  — Tortious or contractual nature) | 10 |
| 2014/C 135/11 | Case C-599/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Jetair NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you v FOD Financiën (VAT  — Special scheme for travel agents  — Transactions carried out outside the European Union  — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC  — Article 28(3)  — Directive 2006/112/EC  — Article 370  — Standstill clauses  — Amendment of national legislation during the transposition period) | 10 |
| 2014/C 135/12 | Joined Cases C-29/13 and C-30/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling  — Community Customs Code  — Articles 243 and 245  — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93  — Article 181a  — Decision amenable to review  — Admissibility of legal proceedings where a prior administrative complaint has not been made  — Principle of respect for the rights of defence) | 11 |
| 2014/C 135/13 | Case C-38/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Social policy  — Directive 1999/70/EC  — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP  — Clause 4  — Concept of employment conditions  — Notice period for the termination of a fixedterm employment contract  — Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration) | 13 |
| 2014/C 135/14 | Case C-52/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Directive 2006/114/EC  — Concepts of misleading advertising and comparative advertising  — National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts) | 13 |
| 2014/C 135/15 | Case C-107/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — FIRIN OOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Common system of value added tax  — Deduction of input tax paid  — Payments made on account  — Refusal to allow the deduction  — Fraud  — Adjustment of the deduction in the case where the taxable transaction is not carried out  — Conditions) | 14 |
| 2014/C 135/16 | Case C-132/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Approximation of laws  — Directive 2006/95/EC  — Definition of electrical equipment — – CE conformity marking  — Housing for multipole electrical connectors) | 15 |
| 2014/C 135/17 | Case C-155/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Venezia-Mestre — Italy) — Società Italiana Commercio e Servizi srl (SICES), in liquidation, Agrima KG D. Gritsch Herbert & Gritsch Michael & Co., Agricola Lusia srl, Romagnoli Fratelli SpA, Agrimediterranea srl, Parini Francesco, Duoccio srl, Centro di Assistenza Doganale Triveneto Service srl, Novafruit srl, Evergreen Fruit Promotion srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia (Agriculture  — Regulation (EC) No 341/2007  — Article 6(4)  — Tariff quotas  — Garlic of Chinese origin  — Import licences  — Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences  — Circumvention  — Abuse of rights) | 16 |
| 2014/C 135/18 | Case C-190/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Social policy  — Directive 1999/70/EC  — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP  — Universities  — Associate lecturers  — Successive fixed-term employment contracts  — Clause 5(1)  — Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts  — Concept of objective reasons justifying such contracts  — Clause 3  — Concept of employment contract of indefinite duration  — Penalties  — Right to compensation  — Difference in treatment between permanent workers) | 17 |
| 2014/C 135/19 | Case C-204/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg (Taxation  — Value added tax  — Origin and scope of the right of deduction  — Dissolution of a partnership by a partner  — Acquisition of a portion of the client base of that partnership  — Contribution in kind to another partnership  — Payment of input tax  — Whether deduction possible) | 18 |
| 2014/C 135/20 | Case C-30/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 January 2014 — Ryanair Ltd, Other party: PR Aviation BV | 18 |
| 2014/C 135/21 | Case C-42/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie | 19 |
| 2014/C 135/22 | Case C-49/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 February 2014 — Finanmadrid E.F.C, S.A. v Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano and Others | 20 |
| 2014/C 135/23 | Case C-54/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. | 20 |
| 2014/C 135/24 | Case C-56/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer and Others | 21 |
| 2014/C 135/25 | Case C-61/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona San Valentino and Others | 21 |
| 2014/C 135/26 | Case C-63/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — European Commission v French Republic | 22 |
| 2014/C 135/27 | Case C-70/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on February 2014 — Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP) | 23 |
| 2014/C 135/28 | Case C-75/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez | 23 |
| 2014/C 135/29 | Case C-88/14: Action brought on 21 February 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union | 24 |
| 2014/C 135/30 | Case C-102/14 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2014 by Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2014 in Case T-134/12 Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission | 25 |
| 2014/C 135/31 | Case C-114/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014 – European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden | 26 |
| 2014/C 135/32 | Case C-116/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 27 |
| 2014/C 135/33 | Case C-121/14: Action brought on 12 March 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union | 28 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 135/34 | Case T-292/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cemex and Others v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality) | 29 |
| 2014/C 135/35 | Case T-293/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality) | 29 |
| 2014/C 135/36 | Case T-296/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Reasonable grounds  — Judicial review  — Proportionality) | 30 |
| 2014/C 135/37 | Case T-297/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Principle of sound administration  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality) | 31 |
| 2014/C 135/38 | Case T-302/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — HeidelbergCement v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality) | 31 |
| 2014/C 135/39 | Case T-305/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Italmobiliare v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Principle of sound administration  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality) | 32 |
| 2014/C 135/40 | Case T-306/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Schwenk Zement v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality) | 32 |
| 2014/C 135/41 | Case T-131/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Lardini v OHIM (Affixing of a flower to a collar) (Community trade mark  — Application for a Community trade mark consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar  — Absolute ground for refusal  — No distinctive character  — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 33 |
| 2014/C 135/42 | Case T-134/10: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — FESI v Council (Action for annulment  — Dumping  — Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather coming from Macao  — Association representing independent importers  — Lack of individual concern  — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures  — Inadmissibility) | 34 |
| 2014/C 135/43 | Case T-430/10: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Commission (Environment  — Integrated pollution prevention and control  — Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries  — Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate  — Dismissal  — Discontinuance  — Removal from the register) | 34 |
| 2014/C 135/44 | Case T-158/11: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Parliament and Council (Environment  — Integrated pollution prevention and control  — Individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU  — Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate  — Dismissal  — Discontinuance  — Removal from the register) | 35 |
| 2014/C 135/45 | Case T-411/11: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM) (Community trade mark  — Opposition procedure  — Withdrawal of the opposition  — No need to adjudicate) | 36 |
| 2014/C 135/46 | Joined Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Eni v Commission (Competition  — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices  — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market  — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC  — Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision  — Reopening of the procedure  — New statement of objections  — Closure of the procedure  — No need to adjudicate) | 36 |
| 2014/C 135/47 | Joined Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Versalis v Commission (Competition  — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices  — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market  — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC  — Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision  — Reopening of the procedure  — New statement of objections  — Closure of the procedure  — No need to adjudicate) | 37 |
| 2014/C 135/48 | Case T-518/12: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Spirlea v Commission (Action for annulment  — Public health  — Decision to bring an end to an EU pilot procedure  — Closure of the file on a complaint  — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations  — Inadmissibility) | 38 |
| 2014/C 135/49 | Case T-187/13: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — Jannatian v Council (Action for annulment  — Common foreign and security policy  — Restrictive measures against Iran  — List of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply  — Period within which an action must be brought  — Action brought out of time  — Inadmissibility) | 38 |
| 2014/C 135/50 | Case T-578/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission (Application for interim measures  — Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market  — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance  — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information  — Application for suspension of operation of a measure  — Admissibility  — Urgency  — Prima facie case  — Weighing up of the interests involved) | 39 |
| 2014/C 135/51 | Case T-1/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission (Application for interim measures  — State aid  — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain economic interest groupings (EIG) and their investors  — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system)  — Application for suspension of operation  — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements  — Inadmissibility) | 40 |
| 2014/C 135/52 | Case T-506/12 P: Appeal brought on 12 March 2014 by Eva Cuallado Martorell against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2012 in Case F-96/09 Cuallado Martorell v Commission | 40 |
| 2014/C 135/53 | Case T-11/14: Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo) | 41 |
| 2014/C 135/54 | Case T-36/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014 — St’art and Others v Commission | 42 |
| 2014/C 135/55 | Case T-65/14: Action brought on 28 January 2014 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council | 43 |
| 2014/C 135/56 | Case T-74/14: Action brought on 31 January 2014 — France v Commission | 44 |
| 2014/C 135/57 | Case T-76/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission | 45 |
| 2014/C 135/58 | Case T-77/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of grey pattern) | 46 |
| 2014/C 135/59 | Case T-78/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455) | 46 |
| 2014/C 135/60 | Case T-81/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER) | 47 |
| 2014/C 135/61 | Case T-84/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR) | 48 |
| 2014/C 135/62 | Case T-85/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL) | 48 |
| 2014/C 135/63 | Case T-89/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council | 49 |
| 2014/C 135/64 | Case T-90/14: Action brought on 3 February 2014 — Secolux v Commission and CdT | 50 |
| 2014/C 135/65 | Case T-93/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — St'art and Others v Commission | 51 |
| 2014/C 135/66 | Case T-94/14: Action brought on 11 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a coloured pattern) | 52 |
| 2014/C 135/67 | Case T-96/14: Action brought on 11 February 2014 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO) | 52 |
| 2014/C 135/68 | Case T-130/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11 Simpson v Council | 53 |
| 2014/C 135/69 | Case T-132/14: Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR) | 53 |
| 2014/C 135/70 | Case T-135/14: Action brought on 20 February 2014 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp) | 54 |
| 2014/C 135/71 | Case T-136/14: Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE) | 55 |
| 2014/C 135/72 | Case T-137/14: Action brought on 25 February 2014 — I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Device of a circle) | 55 |
| 2014/C 135/73 | Case T-140/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Bora Creations v OHIM (gel nails at home) | 56 |
| 2014/C 135/74 | Case T-143/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a yellowy pattern) | 57 |
| 2014/C 135/75 | Case T-144/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of an ivory dotted pattern) | 57 |
| 2014/C 135/76 | Case T-156/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp) | 58 |
| 2014/C 135/77 | Case T-162/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council | 58 |
| 2014/C 135/78 | Case T-163/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council | 59 |
| 2014/C 135/79 | Case T-168/14: Action brought on 13 March 2014 — Pérez Gutiérrez v Commission | 60 |
| 2014/C 135/80 | Case T-119/12: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council | 61 |
| 2014/C 135/81 | Case T-600/13: Order of the General Court of 24 February 2014 — Bimbo v OHIM (FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES) | 61 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 135/03

Case C-222/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet (Road transport  — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006  — Obligation to use a tachograph  — Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance  — Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site)

3

2014/C 135/04

Case C-366/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Sixth VAT Directive  — Exemptions  — Article 13A(1)(b)  — Supply of goods  — Supply of cytostatic drugs for the treatment of outpatients  — Services provided by different taxable persons  — Article 13A(1)(c)  — Provision of medical care  — Drugs prescribed by a doctor working in an independent capacity in a hospital  — Closely related activities  — Services ancillary to the provision of medical care  — Activities physically and economically indissociable)

4

2014/C 135/05

Case C-375/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Grenoble — France) — Margaretha Bouanich v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme (Reference for a preliminary ruling  — Article 63 TFEU  — Free movement of capital  — Article 49 TFEU  — Freedom of establishment  — Tax on income of natural persons  — Mechanism capping direct taxes by reference to income  — Bilateral tax agreement for avoidance of double taxation  — Taxation of dividends distributed by a company established in another Member State and already subject to a withholding tax  — Failure to take into account or partial taking into account of the tax paid in the other Member State for the calculation of the tax cap  — Article 65 TFEU  — Restriction  — Justification)

5

2014/C 135/06

Case C-456/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — O v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v B (Directive 2004/38/EC  — Article 21(1) TFEU  — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States  — Beneficiaries  — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national  — Return of the Union citizen to that Member State after short periods of residence spent in another Member State)

6

2014/C 135/07

Case C-457/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G (Articles 20 TFEU, 21(1) TFEU and 45 TFEU  — Directive 2004/38/EC  — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States  — Beneficiaries  — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national  — Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he is a national  — Professional activities  — Regular travel to another Member State)

7

2014/C 135/08

Case C-464/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — ATP PensionService A/S v The Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive  — Exemptions  — Article 13B(d)(3) and (6)  — Special investment funds  — Occupational pension schemes  — Management  — Transactions concerning deposit and current accounts, payments or transfers)

8

2014/C 135/09

Case C-512/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Octapharma France SAS v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (Approximation of laws  — Directive 2001/83/EC  — Directive 2002/98/EC  — Scope  — Labile blood product  — Plasma prepared by means of an industrial process  — Simultaneous or exclusive application of the directives  — Option for a Member State to provide for a less rigorous regime for plasma than for medicinal products)

9

2014/C 135/10

Case C-548/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf (Area of freedom, security and justice  — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters  — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction  — Article 5(1) and (3)  — Civil liability claim  — Tortious or contractual nature)

10

2014/C 135/11

Case C-599/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Jetair NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you v FOD Financiën (VAT  — Special scheme for travel agents  — Transactions carried out outside the European Union  — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC  — Article 28(3)  — Directive 2006/112/EC  — Article 370  — Standstill clauses  — Amendment of national legislation during the transposition period)

10

2014/C 135/12

Joined Cases C-29/13 and C-30/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling  — Community Customs Code  — Articles 243 and 245  — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93  — Article 181a  — Decision amenable to review  — Admissibility of legal proceedings where a prior administrative complaint has not been made  — Principle of respect for the rights of defence)

11

2014/C 135/13

Case C-38/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Social policy  — Directive 1999/70/EC  — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP  — Clause 4  — Concept of employment conditions  — Notice period for the termination of a fixedterm employment contract  — Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration)

13

2014/C 135/14

Case C-52/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Directive 2006/114/EC  — Concepts of misleading advertising and comparative advertising  — National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts)

13

2014/C 135/15

Case C-107/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — FIRIN OOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Common system of value added tax  — Deduction of input tax paid  — Payments made on account  — Refusal to allow the deduction  — Fraud  — Adjustment of the deduction in the case where the taxable transaction is not carried out  — Conditions)

14

2014/C 135/16

Case C-132/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Approximation of laws  — Directive 2006/95/EC  — Definition of electrical equipment — – CE conformity marking  — Housing for multipole electrical connectors)

15

2014/C 135/17

Case C-155/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Venezia-Mestre — Italy) — Società Italiana Commercio e Servizi srl (SICES), in liquidation, Agrima KG D. Gritsch Herbert & Gritsch Michael & Co., Agricola Lusia srl, Romagnoli Fratelli SpA, Agrimediterranea srl, Parini Francesco, Duoccio srl, Centro di Assistenza Doganale Triveneto Service srl, Novafruit srl, Evergreen Fruit Promotion srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia (Agriculture  — Regulation (EC) No 341/2007  — Article 6(4)  — Tariff quotas  — Garlic of Chinese origin  — Import licences  — Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences  — Circumvention  — Abuse of rights)

16

2014/C 135/18

Case C-190/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Social policy  — Directive 1999/70/EC  — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP  — Universities  — Associate lecturers  — Successive fixed-term employment contracts  — Clause 5(1)  — Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts  — Concept of objective reasons justifying such contracts  — Clause 3  — Concept of employment contract of indefinite duration  — Penalties  — Right to compensation  — Difference in treatment between permanent workers)

17

2014/C 135/19

Case C-204/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg (Taxation  — Value added tax  — Origin and scope of the right of deduction  — Dissolution of a partnership by a partner  — Acquisition of a portion of the client base of that partnership  — Contribution in kind to another partnership  — Payment of input tax  — Whether deduction possible)

18

2014/C 135/20

Case C-30/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 January 2014 — Ryanair Ltd, Other party: PR Aviation BV

18

2014/C 135/21

Case C-42/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

19

2014/C 135/22

Case C-49/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 February 2014 — Finanmadrid E.F.C, S.A. v Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano and Others

20

2014/C 135/23

Case C-54/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

20

2014/C 135/24

Case C-56/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer and Others

21

2014/C 135/25

Case C-61/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona San Valentino and Others

21

2014/C 135/26

Case C-63/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — European Commission v French Republic

22

2014/C 135/27

Case C-70/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on February 2014 — Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

23

2014/C 135/28

Case C-75/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez

23

2014/C 135/29

Case C-88/14: Action brought on 21 February 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

24

2014/C 135/30

Case C-102/14 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2014 by Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2014 in Case T-134/12 Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

25

2014/C 135/31

Case C-114/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014 – European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

26

2014/C 135/32

Case C-116/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

27

2014/C 135/33

Case C-121/14: Action brought on 12 March 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

28

General Court

2014/C 135/34

Case T-292/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cemex and Others v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

29

2014/C 135/35

Case T-293/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

29

2014/C 135/36

Case T-296/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Reasonable grounds  — Judicial review  — Proportionality)

30

2014/C 135/37

Case T-297/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Principle of sound administration  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

31

2014/C 135/38

Case T-302/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — HeidelbergCement v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

31

2014/C 135/39

Case T-305/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Italmobiliare v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Principle of sound administration  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

32

2014/C 135/40

Case T-306/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Schwenk Zement v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

32

2014/C 135/41

Case T-131/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Lardini v OHIM (Affixing of a flower to a collar) (Community trade mark  — Application for a Community trade mark consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar  — Absolute ground for refusal  — No distinctive character  — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

33

2014/C 135/42

Case T-134/10: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — FESI v Council (Action for annulment  — Dumping  — Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather coming from Macao  — Association representing independent importers  — Lack of individual concern  — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures  — Inadmissibility)

34

2014/C 135/43

Case T-430/10: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Commission (Environment  — Integrated pollution prevention and control  — Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries  — Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate  — Dismissal  — Discontinuance  — Removal from the register)

34

2014/C 135/44

Case T-158/11: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Parliament and Council (Environment  — Integrated pollution prevention and control  — Individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU  — Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate  — Dismissal  — Discontinuance  — Removal from the register)

35

2014/C 135/45

Case T-411/11: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM) (Community trade mark  — Opposition procedure  — Withdrawal of the opposition  — No need to adjudicate)

36

2014/C 135/46

Joined Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Eni v Commission (Competition  — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices  — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market  — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC  — Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision  — Reopening of the procedure  — New statement of objections  — Closure of the procedure  — No need to adjudicate)

36

2014/C 135/47

Joined Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Versalis v Commission (Competition  — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices  — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market  — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC  — Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision  — Reopening of the procedure  — New statement of objections  — Closure of the procedure  — No need to adjudicate)

37

2014/C 135/48

Case T-518/12: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Spirlea v Commission (Action for annulment  — Public health  — Decision to bring an end to an EU pilot procedure  — Closure of the file on a complaint  — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations  — Inadmissibility)

38

2014/C 135/49

Case T-187/13: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — Jannatian v Council (Action for annulment  — Common foreign and security policy  — Restrictive measures against Iran  — List of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply  — Period within which an action must be brought  — Action brought out of time  — Inadmissibility)

38

2014/C 135/50

Case T-578/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission (Application for interim measures  — Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market  — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance  — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information  — Application for suspension of operation of a measure  — Admissibility  — Urgency  — Prima facie case  — Weighing up of the interests involved)

39

2014/C 135/51

Case T-1/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission (Application for interim measures  — State aid  — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain economic interest groupings (EIG) and their investors  — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system)  — Application for suspension of operation  — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements  — Inadmissibility)

40

2014/C 135/52

Case T-506/12 P: Appeal brought on 12 March 2014 by Eva Cuallado Martorell against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2012 in Case F-96/09 Cuallado Martorell v Commission

40

2014/C 135/53

Case T-11/14: Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo)

41

2014/C 135/54

Case T-36/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014 — St’art and Others v Commission

42

2014/C 135/55

Case T-65/14: Action brought on 28 January 2014 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

43

2014/C 135/56

Case T-74/14: Action brought on 31 January 2014 — France v Commission

44

2014/C 135/57

Case T-76/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission

45

2014/C 135/58

Case T-77/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of grey pattern)

46

2014/C 135/59

Case T-78/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455)

46

2014/C 135/60

Case T-81/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER)

47

2014/C 135/61

Case T-84/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)

48

2014/C 135/62

Case T-85/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

48

2014/C 135/63

Case T-89/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

49

2014/C 135/64

Case T-90/14: Action brought on 3 February 2014 — Secolux v Commission and CdT

50

2014/C 135/65

Case T-93/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — St'art and Others v Commission

51

2014/C 135/66

Case T-94/14: Action brought on 11 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a coloured pattern)

52

2014/C 135/67

Case T-96/14: Action brought on 11 February 2014 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)

52

2014/C 135/68

Case T-130/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11 Simpson v Council

53

2014/C 135/69

Case T-132/14: Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR)

53

2014/C 135/70

Case T-135/14: Action brought on 20 February 2014 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)

54

2014/C 135/71

Case T-136/14: Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

55

2014/C 135/72

Case T-137/14: Action brought on 25 February 2014 — I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Device of a circle)

55

2014/C 135/73

Case T-140/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Bora Creations v OHIM (gel nails at home)

56

2014/C 135/74

Case T-143/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a yellowy pattern)

57

2014/C 135/75

Case T-144/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of an ivory dotted pattern)

57

2014/C 135/76

Case T-156/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp)

58

2014/C 135/77

Case T-162/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

58

2014/C 135/78

Case T-163/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

59

2014/C 135/79

Case T-168/14: Action brought on 13 March 2014 — Pérez Gutiérrez v Commission

60

2014/C 135/80

Case T-119/12: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council

61

2014/C 135/81

Case T-600/13: Order of the General Court of 24 February 2014 — Bimbo v OHIM (FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES)

61

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/1

---

2014/C 135/01

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

OJ C 129, 28.4.2014

Past publications

OJ C 112, 14.4.2014

OJ C 102, 7.4.2014

OJ C 93, 29.3.2014

OJ C 85, 22.3.2014

OJ C 78, 15.3.2014

OJ C 71, 8.3.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/2

---

DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

of 25 March 2014

concerning the official holidays and the judicial vacations

2014/C 135/02

THE COURT

having regard to Article 24(2), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure,

considering that it is appropriate, by application of that provision, to establish a list of official holidays and set the dates of the judicial vacations,

ADOPTS THE PRESENT DECISION:

Article 1

The list of official holidays within the meaning of Article 24(4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure is established as follows:

| — | New Year’s Day, |
| --- | --- |

—

New Year’s Day,

| — | Easter Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter Monday,

| — | 1 May, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 May,

| — | Ascension, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ascension,

| — | Whit Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Whit Monday,

| — | 23 June, |
| --- | --- |

—

23 June,

| — | 15 August, |
| --- | --- |

—

15 August,

| — | 1 November, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 November,

| — | 25 December, |
| --- | --- |

—

25 December,

| — | 26 December. |
| --- | --- |

—

26 December.

Article 2

For the period from 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2015, the dates of the judicial vacations, within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure, shall be as follows:

| — | Christmas 2014: from Monday, 15 December 2014 to Sunday, 4 January 2015 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2014: from Monday, 15 December 2014 to Sunday, 4 January 2015 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2015: from Monday, 30 March 2015 to Sunday, 12 April 2015 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2015: from Monday, 30 March 2015 to Sunday, 12 April 2015 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2015: from Friday, 17 July 2015 to Sunday, 30 August 2015 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2015: from Friday, 17 July 2015 to Sunday, 30 August 2015 inclusive.

Article 3

This decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Luxembourg, 25 March 2014.

A. CALOT ESCOBAR

Registrar

V. SKOURIS

President

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Case C-222/12) (1)

((Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to use a tachograph - Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance - Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site))

2014/C 135/03

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. Karuse AS

Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Obligation to use a tachograph — Exception to the obligation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance — Tipping lorry with a maximum weight of 25,5 tonnes carrying gravel along the public highway from a quarry to a site of road repair and maintenance works.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘vehicles used in connection with road maintenance’, in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, which vehicles can be exempted from the use of a tachograph, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers vehicles transporting material to a road maintenance works site, provided that the transport is wholly and exclusively connected with those works and constitutes an ancillary activity to them. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case, taking account of all the relevant factors in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH

(Case C-366/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(b) - Supply of goods - Supply of cytostatic drugs for the treatment of outpatients - Services provided by different taxable persons - Article 13A(1)(c) - Provision of medical care - Drugs prescribed by a doctor working in an independent capacity in a hospital - Closely related activities - Services ancillary to the provision of medical care - Activities physically and economically indissociable))

2014/C 135/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-West

Defendant: Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of activities closely related to hospital and medical care — Activity not constituting a service within the meaning of Article 6 of the directive — Activity carried out by a taxable person other than the person who provides the hospital or medical care — Activity closely related to medical care which is not exempt.

Operative part of the judgment

A supply of goods, such as the cytostatic drugs at issue in the main proceedings, prescribed in the course of outpatient cancer treatment by doctors working in an independent capacity in a hospital, may not be exempt from value added tax under Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 12 December 2005, unless that supply is physically and economically indissociable from the principal supply of medical care, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Grenoble — France) — Margaretha Bouanich v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme

(Case C-375/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax on income of natural persons - Mechanism capping direct taxes by reference to income - Bilateral tax agreement for avoidance of double taxation - Taxation of dividends distributed by a company established in another Member State and already subject to a withholding tax - Failure to take into account or partial taking into account of the tax paid in the other Member State for the calculation of the tax cap - Article 65 TFEU - Restriction - Justification))

2014/C 135/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Grenoble

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margaretha Bouanich

Defendant: Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Grenoble — Interpretation of Articles 49, 63 and 65 TFEU — National legislation on personal income tax imposing a cap on the proportion of direct tax payable by a taxpayer — Mechanism known as the ‘bouclier fiscal’ (tax shield) — Bilateral tax convention — Taxation of dividends distributed by a company established in another Member State and already subject to a withholding tax — Sums deducted at source partially taken into account for the calculation of the tax cap — Justification of such legislation on the grounds of the cohesion of the tax system, a balanced allocation of taxing powers between the Member States, or any other overriding reason in the public interest.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, where a resident of that Member State who is a shareholder of a company established in another Member State receives dividends taxed in the two Member States and the double taxation is regulated by the imputation in the Member State of residence of a tax credit of an amount corresponding to the tax paid in the State of the distributing company, a mechanism capping various direct taxes at a certain percentage of income received during a year does not take into account, or takes only partially into account, the tax paid in the State of the distributing company.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — O v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v B

(Case C-456/12) (1)

((Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 21(1) TFEU - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Beneficiaries - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national - Return of the Union citizen to that Member State after short periods of residence spent in another Member State))

2014/C 135/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: O., Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

Defendants: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, B

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 20 TFEU, 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 56 TFEU and of Articles 3(1), 6 and 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Right of entry and residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen — Return of the Union citizen to his Member State of origin after a period of residence spent in another Member State in his capacity as a citizen of the Union within the terms of Article 21 TFEU and as a recipient of services within the terms of Article 56 TFEU — Application of the directive by analogy, as in Case C-370/90 Singh and Case C-291/05 Eind.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a Union citizen has created or strengthened a family life with a third-country national during genuine residence, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, the provisions of that directive apply by analogy where that Union citizen returns, with the family member in question, to his Member State of origin. Therefore, the conditions for granting a derived right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of that Union citizen, in the latter’s Member State of origin, should not, in principle, be more strict than those provided for by that directive for the grant of a derived right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by becoming established in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G

(Case C-457/12) (1)

((Articles 20 TFEU, 21(1) TFEU and 45 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Beneficiaries - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national - Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he is a national - Professional activities - Regular travel to another Member State))

2014/C 135/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: S, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

Defendants: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, G

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 20 TFEU, 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 56 TFEU and of Articles 3(1), 6 and 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Persons benefiting from the right of free movement and freedom to reside in the territory of the Member States — Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who lives in the Member State of which he is a national but who works in another Member State for an employer established in that other Member State — Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who lives and works in his Member State of origin but who regularly travels to another Member State in the course of his professional activities.

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a refusal by a Member State to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen where that citizen is a national of and resides in that Member State but regularly travels to another Member State in the course of his professional activities.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as conferring on a third-country national who is the family member of a Union citizen a derived right of residence in the Member State of which that citizen is a national, where the citizen resides in that Member State but regularly travels to another Member State as a worker within the meaning of that provision, if the refusal to grant such a right of residence discourages the worker from effectively exercising his rights under Article 45 TFEU, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — ATP PensionService A/S v The Skatteministeriet

(Case C-464/12) (1)

((Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(3) and (6) - Special investment funds - Occupational pension schemes - Management - Transactions concerning deposit and current accounts, payments or transfers))

2014/C 135/08

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ATP PensionService A/S

Defendant: The Skatteministeriet

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) and (6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions for transactions concerning deposit and current accounts and for the management of special investment funds — Supply of services relating to payments of funds into a pension fund.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, pension funds such as those at issue in the main proceedings may fall within the scope of that provision if they are funded by the persons to whom the retirement benefit is to be paid, if the funds are invested using a risk-spreading principle, and if the pension customers bear the investment risk. In that regard, it is of little consequence that the contributions are paid by the employer; that the amount paid in is based on collective agreements between labour-market organisations; that there are different ways of paying out the funds invested; that contributions are deductible under income tax law; or that it is possible to add an insurance element which is ancillary to the other services provided; |
| --- | --- |

1)

On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, pension funds such as those at issue in the main proceedings may fall within the scope of that provision if they are funded by the persons to whom the retirement benefit is to be paid, if the funds are invested using a risk-spreading principle, and if the pension customers bear the investment risk. In that regard, it is of little consequence that the contributions are paid by the employer; that the amount paid in is based on collective agreements between labour-market organisations; that there are different ways of paying out the funds invested; that contributions are deductible under income tax law; or that it is possible to add an insurance element which is ancillary to the other services provided;

| 2) | On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive, the term ‘management of special investment funds’ used in that provision covers services by means of which an undertaking establishes the rights of pension customers vis-à-vis pension funds through the opening of accounts in the pension scheme system and the crediting to such accounts of the contributions paid. That term also covers accounting services and account information services such as those listed in Annex II to Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), as amended by Directives 2001/107/EC and 2001/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 January 2002; |
| --- | --- |

2)

On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive, the term ‘management of special investment funds’ used in that provision covers services by means of which an undertaking establishes the rights of pension customers vis-à-vis pension funds through the opening of accounts in the pension scheme system and the crediting to such accounts of the contributions paid. That term also covers accounting services and account information services such as those listed in Annex II to Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), as amended by Directives 2001/107/EC and 2001/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 January 2002;

| 3) | On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive, the VAT exemption laid down in that provision for transactions concerning payments and transfers covers services by means of which an undertaking establishes the rights of pension customers vis-à-vis pension funds through the creation of accounts for those customers within the pension scheme system and the crediting to those pension customers’ accounts of the contributions paid, and any transactions which are ancillary to those services or which combine with those services to form a single economic supply. |
| --- | --- |

3)

On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive, the VAT exemption laid down in that provision for transactions concerning payments and transfers covers services by means of which an undertaking establishes the rights of pension customers vis-à-vis pension funds through the creation of accounts for those customers within the pension scheme system and the crediting to those pension customers’ accounts of the contributions paid, and any transactions which are ancillary to those services or which combine with those services to form a single economic supply.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Octapharma France SAS v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-512/12) (1)

((Approximation of laws - Directive 2001/83/EC - Directive 2002/98/EC - Scope - Labile blood product - Plasma prepared by means of an industrial process - Simultaneous or exclusive application of the directives - Option for a Member State to provide for a less rigorous regime for plasma than for medicinal products))

2014/C 135/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Octapharma France SAS

Defendants: Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC (OJ 2003 L 33, p. 30) and of Article 168 TFEU — Labile blood products — Plasma prepared by means of an industrial process — Simultaneous application of two directives or application of the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC alone due to the less strict scheme implemented by Directive 2002/98/EC — Option for a Member State to adopt or maintain national provisions implementing a less strict scheme for plasma prepared by means of an industrial process than for medicinal products — De facto non-application of Directive 2001/83/EC regarding the condition of the prior grant of a marketing authorisation.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83 must be interpreted as meaning that plasma from whole blood which is prepared by a method involving an industrial process and which is intended for transfusions comes, in accordance with Article 109 of Directive 2001/83, within the scope of Directive 2002/98 with respect to its collection and testing, and within the scope of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, with respect to its processing, storage and distribution, on condition that it satisfies the definition of a medicinal product under Article 1(2) of the latter directive; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83 must be interpreted as meaning that plasma from whole blood which is prepared by a method involving an industrial process and which is intended for transfusions comes, in accordance with Article 109 of Directive 2001/83, within the scope of Directive 2002/98 with respect to its collection and testing, and within the scope of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, with respect to its processing, storage and distribution, on condition that it satisfies the definition of a medicinal product under Article 1(2) of the latter directive;

| 2) | Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/98, read in the light of Article 168 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the maintenance or introduction of national provisions which make plasma which is prepared by a method involving an industrial process subject to a more rigorous regime than that to which medicinal products are subject solely with respect to its collection and testing. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/98, read in the light of Article 168 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the maintenance or introduction of national provisions which make plasma which is prepared by a method involving an industrial process subject to a more rigorous regime than that to which medicinal products are subject solely with respect to its collection and testing.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf

(Case C-548/12) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1) and (3) - Civil liability claim - Tortious or contractual nature))

2014/C 135/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marc Brogsitter

Defendants: Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Krefeld — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Action brought before a court with jurisdiction in matters of tort or delict — Situation in which the tortious or delictual act was committed in the course of the performance of the contract between the tortfeasor and the victim and the court pertaining to the place of performance of the underlying obligation is situated in another Member State — Determination of the court with jurisdiction.

Operative part of the judgment

Civil liability claims such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are made in tort under national law, must nonetheless be considered as concerning ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the terms of the contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Jetair NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you v FOD Financiën

(Case C-599/12) (1)

((VAT - Special scheme for travel agents - Transactions carried out outside the European Union - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 28(3) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 370 - ‘Standstill’ clauses - Amendment of national legislation during the transposition period))

2014/C 135/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jetair NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you

Defendant: FOD Financiën

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU, Articles 26(3) and 28(3)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Interpretation and validity of Articles 153, 309 and 370 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special scheme applicable to travel agents — Supplies of services involving recourse to other taxable persons for the purpose of performing transactions outside the European Union — Non-exemption — Principles of equality, fiscal neutrality and proportionality.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 28(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Article 370 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax do not preclude the introduction by a Member State before 1 January 1978, during the transposition period of Sixth Directive 77/388, of a provision that amends its existing legislation by imposing VAT on the transactions of travel agents relating to journeys outside the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 28(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Article 370 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax do not preclude the introduction by a Member State before 1 January 1978, during the transposition period of Sixth Directive 77/388, of a provision that amends its existing legislation by imposing VAT on the transactions of travel agents relating to journeys outside the European Union;

| 2. | A Member State is not in breach of Article 309 of Directive 2006/112 by not treating the services of travel agents as exempt intermediary activities where those services relate to journeys made outside of the European Union and by imposing VAT on those services, if it imposed VAT on those services on 1 January 1978; |
| --- | --- |

2.

A Member State is not in breach of Article 309 of Directive 2006/112 by not treating the services of travel agents as exempt intermediary activities where those services relate to journeys made outside of the European Union and by imposing VAT on those services, if it imposed VAT on those services on 1 January 1978;

| 3. | Article 370 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with point 4 of Part A of Annex X of that directive, does not infringe EU law by granting Member States the option to continue to tax the supply of the services of travel agents in relation to journeys outside the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 370 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with point 4 of Part A of Annex X of that directive, does not infringe EU law by granting Member States the option to continue to tax the supply of the services of travel agents in relation to journeys outside the European Union;

| 4. | A Member State does not infringe EU law, in particular the principles of equality, proportionality and fiscal neutrality, by treating travel agents, within the meaning of Article 26(1) of Directive 77/388 and Article 306 of Directive 2006/112, differently from intermediaries and by laying down a rule, such as the Royal Decree of 28 November 1999, under which only the services of travel agents, but not those of intermediaries, are taxable with regard to journeys outside the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A Member State does not infringe EU law, in particular the principles of equality, proportionality and fiscal neutrality, by treating travel agents, within the meaning of Article 26(1) of Directive 77/388 and Article 306 of Directive 2006/112, differently from intermediaries and by laying down a rule, such as the Royal Decree of 28 November 1999, under which only the services of travel agents, but not those of intermediaries, are taxable with regard to journeys outside the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

(Joined Cases C-29/13 and C-30/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Articles 243 and 245 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 181a - Decision amenable to review - Admissibility of legal proceedings where a prior administrative complaint has not been made - Principle of respect for the rights of defence))

2014/C 135/12

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Articles 243 and 245 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 181a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Principles of the rights of the defence and res judicata — Appeal against a decision of the customs authority to recover a posteriori customs debts even in cases of final decisions of that authority — Admissibility of legal proceedings where a prior administrative complaint has not been made — Decision of the customs authority taken in breach of procedural requirements — Obligation for a court in such a situation to make a ruling without taking account of the requirement of a prior administrative appeal.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | First, a decision, such as one of those at issue in the main proceedings, rectifying, on the basis of Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, the customs value of goods with the consequence that the declarant is served with a tax adjustment in respect of value added tax, constitutes a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92. Secondly, having regard to the general principles of respect for the rights of the defence and res judicata, Article 245 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes provision for two separate appeal procedures for challenging decisions of the customs authorities, where that legislation does not run counter to either the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, a decision, such as one of those at issue in the main proceedings, rectifying, on the basis of Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, the customs value of goods with the consequence that the declarant is served with a tax adjustment in respect of value added tax, constitutes a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92. Secondly, having regard to the general principles of respect for the rights of the defence and res judicata, Article 245 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes provision for two separate appeal procedures for challenging decisions of the customs authorities, where that legislation does not run counter to either the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness.

| 2. | Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not provide that the admissibility of judicial proceedings against decisions adopted on the basis of Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, is subject to the condition that the administrative remedies available to challenge those decisions have been exhausted beforehand. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not provide that the admissibility of judicial proceedings against decisions adopted on the basis of Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, is subject to the condition that the administrative remedies available to challenge those decisions have been exhausted beforehand.

| 3. | Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted under that article must be regarded as final and capable of being challenged by way of a direct action before an independent judicial authority, even where it was adopted in breach of the right of the person concerned to be heard and to raise objections. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted under that article must be regarded as final and capable of being challenged by way of a direct action before an independent judicial authority, even where it was adopted in breach of the right of the person concerned to be heard and to raise objections.

| 4. | In the event of a breach of the right of the person concerned to be heard and to raise objections under Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, it is for the national court to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case before it and in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, whether, where the decision which was adopted in breach of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence must be annulled on that ground, it must give a ruling in the action brought against that decision or whether it can consider referring the matter back to the competent administrative authority. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of a breach of the right of the person concerned to be heard and to raise objections under Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, it is for the national court to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case before it and in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, whether, where the decision which was adopted in breach of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence must be annulled on that ground, it must give a ruling in the action brought against that decision or whether it can consider referring the matter back to the competent administrative authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

(Case C-38/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Notice period for the termination of a fixedterm employment contract - Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration))

2014/C 135/13

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Małgorzata Nierodzik

Defendant: Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), and of clauses 1 and 4 of the annex to that directive — Provisions of national law providing for less favourable periods of notice in fixed-term contracts than in open-ended contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, for the termination of fixed-term contracts of more than six months, a fixed notice period of two weeks may be applied regardless of the length of service of the worker concerned, whereas the length of the notice period for contracts of indefinite duration is fixed in accordance with the length of service of the worker concerned and may vary from two weeks to three months, where those two categories of workers are in comparable situations.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-52/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/114/EC - Concepts of ‘misleading advertising’ and ‘comparative advertising’ - National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts))

2014/C 135/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Interveners: Cg srl, Tacoma srl

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Unfair business practices between traders — Concept of ‘misleading advertising and comparative advertising’ — National legislation which not only prohibits advertising that is at the same time misleading and based on unlawful comparison but also provides that misleading advertising and comparative advertising are two separate offences.

Operative part of the judgment

With regard to the protection afforded to traders, Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is to be interpreted as referring to misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising as two independent infringements and to the effect that, in order to prohibit and penalise misleading advertising, it is not necessary that that latter at the same time should constitute unlawful comparative advertising.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — FIRIN OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-107/13) (1)

((Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax paid - Payments made on account - Refusal to allow the deduction - Fraud - Adjustment of the deduction in the case where the taxable transaction is not carried out - Conditions))

2014/C 135/15

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FIRIN OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Interpretation of Article 168(a), read in conjunction with Articles 65, 90(1) and 185(1), and of Article 205, read in conjunction with Articles 168(a) and 193, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Principles of the neutrality of VAT, effectiveness and proportionality — Deduction of input tax paid — Payment made on account in respect of precisely identified goods prior to the supply — Refusal to allow the deduction at the time of receipt of the payment on account since supply not made — Possibility for the supplier to adjust the deduction initially made and impact on the refusal to allow such a deduction — Refusal to allow the recipient of a supply to deduct VAT because of the joint and several liability for payment of the tax of a taxable person other than the person liable — Designation of the person jointly and severally liable on the basis of presumptions founded on established precepts of civil law.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 65, 90(1), 168(a), 185(1) and 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as requiring that the deduction of value added tax made by the recipient of an invoice drawn up with a view to a payment being made on account in relation to the supply of goods be adjusted where, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that supply is ultimately not made, even if the supplier remains liable for that tax and has not refunded the payment made on account.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH

(Case C-132/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2006/95/EC - Definition of ‘electrical equipment - ’– CE conformity marking - Housing for multipole electrical connectors))

2014/C 135/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: ILME GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II to IV to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10) — Notion of ‘electrical equipment’ — Prohibition of affixing the ‘CE’ conformity marking to the housings of multipole connectors sold as separate parts.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits must be interpreted as meaning that housing for multipole connectors for industrial use, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is covered by the definition of ‘electrical equipment’ for the purposes of that provision and must, therefore, bear the CE marking as long as its proper incorporation and use for the purpose for which it was made does not mean that it ceases to comply with the relevant safety requirements for which it has been examined.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Venezia-Mestre — Italy) — Società Italiana Commercio e Servizi srl (SICES), in liquidation, Agrima KG D. Gritsch Herbert & Gritsch Michael & Co., Agricola Lusia srl, Romagnoli Fratelli SpA, Agrimediterranea srl, Parini Francesco, Duoccio srl, Centro di Assistenza Doganale Triveneto Service srl, Novafruit srl, Evergreen Fruit Promotion srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia

(Case C-155/13) (1)

((Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 - Article 6(4) - Tariff quotas - Garlic of Chinese origin - Import licences - Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences - Circumvention - Abuse of rights))

2014/C 135/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Venezia-Mestre

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Società Italiana Commercio e Servizi srl (SICES), in liquidation, Agrima KG D. Gritsch Herbert & Gritsch Michael & Co., Agricola Lusia srl, Romagnoli Fratelli SpA, Agrimediterranea srl, Parini Francesco, Duoccio srl, Centro di Assistenza Doganale Triveneto Service srl, Novafruit srl, Evergreen Fruit Promotion srl

Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria regionale di Venezia-Mestre — Interpretation of Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 of 29 March 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas and introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and certain other agricultural products imported from third countries (OJ 2007 L 90, p. 12) — Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from ‘A’ certificates — Companies holding import licences which purchased, before importation, Chinese garlic via a company which does not hold such licences and which resold the garlic in question, after payment of customs duties, to that company.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 of 29 March 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas and introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and certain other agricultural products imported from third countries must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, transactions by which an importer, holding reduced rate import licences, purchases goods outside the European Union from an operator, itself a traditional importer within the meaning of Article 4(2) of that regulation, but having exhausted its own reduced rate import licences, then resells them to that operator after having imported them into the European Union. However, such transactions constitute an abuse of rights where they are artificially created with the essential aim of benefiting from the preferential rate of duty. The checking for abuse requires the referring court to take into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the commercial transactions preceding and following the import at issue.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra

(Case C-190/13) (1)

((Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Universities - Associate lecturers - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts - Clause 3 - Concept of ‘employment contract of indefinite duration’ - Penalties - Right to compensation - Difference in treatment between permanent workers))

2014/C 135/18

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Antonio Márquez Samohano

Defendant: Universitat Pompeu Fabra

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Interpretation of clauses 3 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Employment contracts concluded with the public administration — University professors — Absence of measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow universities to renew successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded with associate lecturers, with no limitation as to the maximum duration and the number of renewals of those contracts, where such contracts are justified by an objective reason within the meaning of clause 5(1)(a), which is a matter for the referring court to verify. However, it is also for that court to ascertain that, in the main proceedings, the renewal of the successive fixed-term employment contracts at issue was actually intended to cover temporary needs and that rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings were not, in fact, used to meet fixed and permanent needs in terms of employment of teaching staff.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg

(Case C-204/13) (1)

((Taxation - Value added tax - Origin and scope of the right of deduction - Dissolution of a partnership by a partner - Acquisition of a portion of the client base of that partnership - Contribution in kind to another partnership - Payment of input tax - Whether deduction possible))

2014/C 135/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Finanzamt Saarlouis

Defendants: Heinz Malburg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 4(1) and (2) and 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Creation and extent of the right to deduct — Acquisition of a portion of the client base of a dissolved partnership by a partner in that partnership for the purpose of bringing it into a new partnership as a contribution in kind — Whether it is possible to deduct the input tax.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 must, having regard to the principle of value added tax neutrality, be interpreted as meaning that a partner in a partnership of tax advisors who acquires from that partnership a portion of its client base for the sole purpose of making that client base available directly and free of charge to a newly founded partnership of tax advisors, in which he is the principal partner, so that that partnership can use that client base in its business, without that client base however becoming part of the capital assets of the newly founded partnership, is not entitled to deduct input value added tax paid on the acquisition of the client base concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 January 2014 — Ryanair Ltd, Other party: PR Aviation BV

(Case C-30/14)

2014/C 135/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Other party: PR Aviation BV

Question referred

Does the operation of the [Database Directive] (1) also extend to online databases which are not protected by copyright on the basis of Chapter II of the Directive, and also not by a sui generis right on the basis of Chapter III, in the sense that the freedom to use such databases through the (whether or not analogous) application of Articles 6(1) and 8 in conjunction with Article 15 [of the Database Directive], may not be limited contractually?

---

(1)  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20).

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

(Case C-42/14)

2014/C 135/21

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Minister Finansów

Respondent on a point of law: Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Article 14(1), Article 15(1) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that there are supplies by the landlord of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal services to the tenant of the premises directly using those goods and services, which are supplied to those premises by specialist third persons, in a situation where one of the parties to the agreements for the supply of those goods and services is the landlord, who simply passes on the costs thereof to the tenant who actually uses them? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must Article 14(1), Article 15(1) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that there are supplies by the landlord of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal services to the tenant of the premises directly using those goods and services, which are supplied to those premises by specialist third persons, in a situation where one of the parties to the agreements for the supply of those goods and services is the landlord, who simply passes on the costs thereof to the tenant who actually uses them?

| (2) | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the costs of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal used by the tenant of the premises increase, as regards the landlord, the taxable amount (rent), as referred to in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, resulting from the supply of the rental service, or do the supplies of goods and services in question constitute supplies separate from the rental service? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the costs of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal used by the tenant of the premises increase, as regards the landlord, the taxable amount (rent), as referred to in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, resulting from the supply of the rental service, or do the supplies of goods and services in question constitute supplies separate from the rental service?

---

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 February 2014 — Finanmadrid E.F.C, S.A. v Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano and Others

(Case C-49/14)

2014/C 135/22

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanmadrid E.F.C, S.A.

Defendants: Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano, María Josefa García Zapata, Jorge Luis Albán Zambrano, Miriam Elisabeth Caicedo Merino

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Directive [93/13] (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that currently governing the Spanish order for payment procedure (Articles 815 and 816 [of the] LEC), which does not mandatorily provide either for the examination of unfair terms or the intervention of the court, except when the Secretario Judicial considers it expedient or the debtors lodge an objection, because that legislation hinders or prevents examination of their own motion by the courts of contracts which may contain unfair terms? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must Directive [93/13] (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that currently governing the Spanish order for payment procedure (Articles 815 and 816 [of the] LEC), which does not mandatorily provide either for the examination of unfair terms or the intervention of the court, except when the Secretario Judicial considers it expedient or the debtors lodge an objection, because that legislation hinders or prevents examination of their own motion by the courts of contracts which may contain unfair terms?

| (2) | Must Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as the Spanish law that does not permit a court to consider, of its own motion and [in] limine litis, during subsequent enforcement proceedings [relating to] an enforceable instrument (a reasoned decision issued by the Secretario Judicial bringing the order for payment procedure to a close), whether the contract giving rise to the reasoned decision whose enforcement is sought contained unfair terms, because under national law the matter is res judicata (Articles 551 and 552 in conjunction with Article 816(2) of the LEC)? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Must Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as the Spanish law that does not permit a court to consider, of its own motion and [in] limine litis, during subsequent enforcement proceedings [relating to] an enforceable instrument (a reasoned decision issued by the Secretario Judicial bringing the order for payment procedure to a close), whether the contract giving rise to the reasoned decision whose enforcement is sought contained unfair terms, because under national law the matter is res judicata (Articles 551 and 552 in conjunction with Article 816(2) of the LEC)?

| (3) | Must the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that relating to the order for payment procedure and the procedure for the enforcement of judicial instruments, that does not provide for review by the court in every case during the declaratory stages of proceedings and does not permit the court at the enforcement stage to reconsider the reasoned decisions previously taken by the Secretario Judicial? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Must the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that relating to the order for payment procedure and the procedure for the enforcement of judicial instruments, that does not provide for review by the court in every case during the declaratory stages of proceedings and does not permit the court at the enforcement stage to reconsider the reasoned decisions previously taken by the Secretario Judicial?

| (4) | Must the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation that prohibits a court from considering, of its own motion, whether the right to be heard has been observed, because the matter is res judicata? |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Must the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation that prohibits a court from considering, of its own motion, whether the right to be heard has been observed, because the matter is res judicata?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

(Case C-54/14)

2014/C 135/23

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | On a proper construction of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13, (1) must an agreement between a bank and an individual consumer be held to be individually negotiated when, as well as altering the conditions on the limiting of interest rates, it imposes on the consumer the costs of amending the authentic instrument of loan and mortgage executed by the bank and the consumer, and when that agreement was proposed by the bank as one of the possible alternatives for altering the financial terms of the loan and was voluntarily accepted by the consumer following an agreement reached after negotiations between the bank and a mutual society of which the consumer is a member in the interests and to the benefit of the members of that mutual society? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper construction of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13, (1) must an agreement between a bank and an individual consumer be held to be individually negotiated when, as well as altering the conditions on the limiting of interest rates, it imposes on the consumer the costs of amending the authentic instrument of loan and mortgage executed by the bank and the consumer, and when that agreement was proposed by the bank as one of the possible alternatives for altering the financial terms of the loan and was voluntarily accepted by the consumer following an agreement reached after negotiations between the bank and a mutual society of which the consumer is a member in the interests and to the benefit of the members of that mutual society?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, to be interpreted, with regard to the unfairness of the term, as precluding an agreement such as that described in the first question, having regard to the purpose and object of the agreement between the bank and the mutual society? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, to be interpreted, with regard to the unfairness of the term, as precluding an agreement such as that described in the first question, having regard to the purpose and object of the agreement between the bank and the mutual society?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer and Others

(Case C-56/14)

2014/C 135/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendants: Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA

Question referred

Is the prior declaration requirement for employees imposed under the LIMOSA system, as provided for in Articles 137 to 152 of the Belgian Programme Law of 27 December 2006, incompatible with the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 49 EC and Article 56 TFEU?

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ and Others

(Case C-61/14)

2014/C 135/25

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato

Defendants: Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ — Città di Levico Terme, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

Other party to the proceedings: Associazione Infermieristica D & F. Care

Question referred

Do the principles laid down in Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992, as subsequently amended and added to, preclude a provision of national law, such as that set out in Article 13(1a), (1c) and (6a) and in Article 14(3b) of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002 (as progressively amended by subsequent legislative interventions) which laid down high amounts of the standard fee for access to administrative proceedings relating to public contracts?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

(2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/22

---

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-63/14)

2014/C 135/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to recover from the recipient the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation, (1) in not having annulled, within the prescribed periods, all the aid payments referred to in that Article 2(1) and in not having informed the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to recover from the recipient the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation, (1) in not having annulled, within the prescribed periods, all the aid payments referred to in that Article 2(1) and in not having informed the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision;

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

—

order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit within which the French Republic should have recovered the aid illegally paid to the SNCM expired four months after notification of the decision.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 220, p. 20.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on February 2014 — Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

(Case C-70/14)

2014/C 135/27

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

Question referred

Given that the Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas, IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries), IP, held that ‘only goods included in the following are eligible for export refunds:

| — | Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 10 9900, corresponding to what are referred to as ‘70% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias, or |
| --- | --- |

—

Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 10 9900, corresponding to what are referred to as ‘70% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias, or

| — | Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 90 9190, corresponding to what are referred to as ‘65% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias’, and that the company actually exported spent laying hens (hens slaughtered at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified), is the product ‘spent laying hens’ included in the description of goods ‘Others’, with the product codes ‘0207 12 10 9900’ and ‘0207 12 90 9190’, indicated in Annex I of Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, (1) amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2319/2002 (2) of 13 December 2002, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2180/2003 (3) of 5 December 2003, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2004 (4) of 10 December 2004 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 (5) of 15 December, relating to the publication, for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively, of the nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds?’ |
| --- | --- |

—

Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 90 9190, corresponding to what are referred to as ‘65% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias’, and that the company actually exported spent laying hens (hens slaughtered at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified), is the product ‘spent laying hens’ included in the description of goods ‘Others’, with the product codes ‘0207 12 10 9900’ and ‘0207 12 90 9190’, indicated in Annex I of Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, (1) amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2319/2002 (2) of 13 December 2002, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2180/2003 (3) of 5 December 2003, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2004 (4) of 10 December 2004 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 (5) of 15 December, relating to the publication, for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively, of the nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds?’

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (OJ 1987 L 366, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2002 L 325, p. 35.

(3)  OJ 2003 L 335, p. 1.

(4)  OJ 2004 L 380, p. 1.

(5)  OJ 2005 L 343, p. 1.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez

(Case C-75/14)

2014/C 135/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ávila

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.

Defendants: Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?

| 2. | Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?

| 3. | Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 ... contravene ... Directive 93/13/EEC ..., and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 ...? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 ... contravene ... Directive 93/13/EEC ..., and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 ...?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/24

---

Action brought on 21 February 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-88/14)

2014/C 135/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, B. Martenczuk, G. Wils, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1, point 1, as well as point 4 to the extent that it introduces a new Article 4b, of Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1, point 1, as well as point 4 to the extent that it introduces a new Article 4b, of Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (1);

| — | state that the effects of the annulled provisions and any implementing measure derived therefrom are definitive pending their replacement within a reasonable time-frame by acts adopted in accordance with the Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

state that the effects of the annulled provisions and any implementing measure derived therefrom are definitive pending their replacement within a reasonable time-frame by acts adopted in accordance with the Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court;

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In subsidiary order, in the event that the Court were to consider the above-mentioned provisions to be inseparable from the rest of the challenged Regulation, the Commission respectfully requests the Court to:

| — | annul Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement in its entirety;

| — | state that the effects of the annulled regulation and any implementing measure derived therefrom are definitive pending their replacement within a reasonable time-frame by acts adopted in accordance with the Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

state that the effects of the annulled regulation and any implementing measure derived therefrom are definitive pending their replacement within a reasonable time-frame by acts adopted in accordance with the Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court;

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks the annulment of Article 1, point 1, as well as point 4 to the extent that it introduces a new Article 4b, of Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. Alternatively, in the event that the Court were to consider the above-mentioned provisions to be inseparable from the rest of the challenged Regulation, the Commission seeks the annulment of the entire regulation.

The Commission is of the view that the provisions referred to are incompatible with Articles 290 and 291 TFEU to the extent that they foresee the use of delegated acts, since the delegated acts in question do not supplement or amend the legislative act, but implement it.

---

(1)  OJ L 347, p 74

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/25

---

Appeal brought on 4 March 2014 by Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2014 in Case T-134/12 Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

(Case C-102/14 P)

2014/C 135/30

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, S.A. (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2014 in Case T-134/12 regarding the inadmissibility of the application for annulment |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2014 in Case T-134/12 regarding the inadmissibility of the application for annulment

| — | In the alternative, set aside one or more parts of that order






  — | Set aside the order regarding the aid received in respect of the projects listed on the first page of the application for annulment, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, set aside one or more parts of that order

—

Set aside the order regarding the aid received in respect of the projects listed on the first page of the application for annulment, and

| — | Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of project Bey Watch, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of project Bey Watch, and

| — | Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of project Indect, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of project Indect, and

| — | Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of the other projects |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of the other projects

| — | Refer the case in its entirety back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits of the case |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case in its entirety back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits of the case

| — | In the alternative, refer such part or parts as the Court sees fit to the General Court for a ruling on the merits of that part or those parts |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, refer such part or parts as the Court sees fit to the General Court for a ruling on the merits of that part or those parts

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those in Case T-134/12 as well in so far as the same grounds are concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those in Case T-134/12 as well in so far as the same grounds are concerned.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of fact by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal, in that it did not take into account any of the documents submitted by the appellant in its application. In the appellant’s opinion, the General Court disregarded facts, omissions and documents of great relevance to the reasoning in the order.

Error of law by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal, in that it held that only proceedings under Article 272 TFEU were viable, and not proceedings under Article 263 TFEU.

Error of law by the General Court, in that it did not assess the Commission’s part in the error into which the appellant was led as to the fact that the debit notes constituted a definitive act in the Commission’s exercise of its own powers and were, therefore, an actionable measure. Breach by the General Court of the principle of equality and non-discrimination under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Error of law by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal, in that it did not take into account the facts, omissions and documents referred to in the initial headings in the notice of appeal.

Error of law by the General Court in the assessment of the lack of reasoning and of the Commission’s failure even to make any observations on many of the submissions made by the appellant in its application for annulment.

Error of fact and law by the General Court in relation to the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal as to the inadmissibility of the claim for damages in respect of project Bey Watch, which call in question its viability. The appellant claims that the appropriateness of the claim for non-contractual liability is established and that all the requirements under European Union case-law for that liability to be incurred have been satisfied.

Error of law by the General Court regarding the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal as to the inadmissibility of the claim for damages in respect of project Indect, in that it held that the only action that would lie was an action for contractual liability when, under European Union case-law, an action for non-contractual liability is the only possible means of establishing liability for a failure to state reasons by the Commission.

Error of fact and law by the General Court regarding the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal as to the inadmissibility of the claim for damages in respect of the other projects, in so far as the General Court went beyond its jurisdiction and acted of its own motion.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/26

---

Action brought on 10 March 2014 – European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-114/14)

2014/C 135/31

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to exempt postal services supplied by the public postal services and the supply of goods incidental thereto from value added tax and by failing to exempt the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services within the country from value added tax, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 132(1)(a) and 135(1)(h) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to exempt postal services supplied by the public postal services and the supply of goods incidental thereto from value added tax and by failing to exempt the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services within the country from value added tax, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 132(1)(a) and 135(1)(h) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. (1)

| — | order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission has brought an action against the Kingdom of Sweden under Article 258 TFEU on the following grounds.

Article 132(1)(a) of Directive 2006/112 states that the Member States are to exempt the supply by the public postal services of services and the supply of goods incidental thereto from liability for tax.

Article 135(1)(h) of Directive 2006/112 provides that the Member States are to exempt the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services from liability for tax.

The Kingdom of Sweden has instructed Posten AB to supply the universal services involving the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in their territory at affordable prices for all users in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service. (2)

The Commission is of the opinion that Posten AB, by supplying the universal services described in Article 3 of Directive 97/67, constitutes a public postal service within the meaning of Article 132 of Directive 2006/112.

The Kingdom of Sweden has failed to exempt the postal services supplied by Posten AB and the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services within the country from liability for tax.

---

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

(2)  OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/27

---

Action brought on 10 March 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-116/14)

2014/C 135/32

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court of Justice shall:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate the necessary guidelines, the Portuguese Republic has not complied with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety management; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate the necessary guidelines, the Portuguese Republic has not complied with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety management;

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/96/EC, Member States must ensure that guidelines, if they do not already exist, are adopted by 19 December 2011, in order to support the competent entities in the application of the directive.

More than two years after the expiry of the deadline for adopting those guidelines, Portugal has still not adopted them.

Under Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/96/EC, Member States must communicate those guidelines to the Commission within three months of their adoption.

As Portugal has not adopted any guidelines, it has failed to comply with the obligation to communicate.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 319, p. 59

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/28

---

Action brought on 12 March 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-121/14)

2014/C 135/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, Agent, D.J. Rhee, Barrister)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 29 of, and Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 insofar as they extend beyond London what was Corridor 2 in the original Annex to Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 (now referred to as the North Sea — Mediterranean corridor); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 29 of, and Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 insofar as they extend beyond London what was Corridor 2 in the original Annex to Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 (now referred to as the North Sea — Mediterranean corridor); and

| — | order that the European Parliament and Council of the European Union pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the European Parliament and Council of the European Union pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The effect of the parts of the contested measure for which annulment is sought is to amend Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive freight so as to replace the ‘initial freight corridors’ in Annex to that Regulation with a revised set of ‘initial freight corridors’ as set out in Annex II to the contested measure.

The effect of the said amendment is, inter alia, to require the United Kingdom to participate in the establishment of the ‘North Sea — Mediterranean’ freight corridor, with an obligation to establish by 10 November 2016 routes between the other member states on the Corridor and London and by 20 November 2018, routes from London to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Southampton and Felixstowe. The United Kingdom has not approved such an extension of the relevant initial corridor set out in Regulation (EU) 913/2010.

The United Kingdom therefore seeks the relief indicated for the following reasons:

| a) | the extensions to the ‘initial freight corridors’ brought about by Article 29 of the contested measure pursue the objectives in Article 170 TFEU in relation to the trans-European transport policy. Accordingly, and on the basis that Articles 170 to 172 TFEU constitute a lex specialis for such measures, they can only be adopted under and in accordance with those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the extensions to the ‘initial freight corridors’ brought about by Article 29 of the contested measure pursue the objectives in Article 170 TFEU in relation to the trans-European transport policy. Accordingly, and on the basis that Articles 170 to 172 TFEU constitute a lex specialis for such measures, they can only be adopted under and in accordance with those provisions;

| b) | the extensions to the ‘initial freight corridors’ brought about by Article 29 of the contested measure (a) are projects of common interest (within the meaning of Article 171(1) TFEU) and (b) relate to the territory of each Member State required to participate in their establishment. On this basis, the extensions, in so far as concerns the United Kingdom, have been adopted in breach of the requirement in the second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU for approval of the Member State concerned; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the extensions to the ‘initial freight corridors’ brought about by Article 29 of the contested measure (a) are projects of common interest (within the meaning of Article 171(1) TFEU) and (b) relate to the territory of each Member State required to participate in their establishment. On this basis, the extensions, in so far as concerns the United Kingdom, have been adopted in breach of the requirement in the second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU for approval of the Member State concerned;

| c) | that part of Annex II to the contested measure which requires the United Kingdom to participate in the establishment of the North Sea — Mediterranean Corridor in its territory (i) beyond London (ie to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Felixstowe and Southampton) or (ii) at all, is severable from the remainder of Annex II. Further and in any event, the entirety of Annex II to (and Article 29 of) the contested measure are distinct and severable from the remainder of the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

c)

that part of Annex II to the contested measure which requires the United Kingdom to participate in the establishment of the North Sea — Mediterranean Corridor in its territory (i) beyond London (ie to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Felixstowe and Southampton) or (ii) at all, is severable from the remainder of Annex II. Further and in any event, the entirety of Annex II to (and Article 29 of) the contested measure are distinct and severable from the remainder of the Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ L 348, p. 129

(2)  OJ L 276, p. 22

---

General Court

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cemex and Others v Commission

(Case T-292/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Cemex SAB. De CV (Monterrey, Mexico); New Sunward Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Cemex España, SA (Madrid, Spain); Cemex Deutschland AG (Ratingen, Germany); Cemex UK (Egham, United Kingdom); Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic); Cemex France Gestion (Rungis, France); Cemex Austria AG (Langenzersdorf, Austria) (represented by: M. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez, H. González Durántez and B. Martínez Corral, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, F. Castilla Contreras and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2360 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cemex SAB. De CV, New Sunward Holding BV, Cemex España, SA, Cemex Deutschland AG, Cemex UK, Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o., Cemex France Gestion and Cemex Austria AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cemex SAB. De CV, New Sunward Holding BV, Cemex España, SA, Cemex Deutschland AG, Cemex UK, Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o., Cemex France Gestion and Cemex Austria AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission

(Case T-293/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Holcim (Deutschland) AG (Hamburg, Germany) and Holcim Ltd (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Niggemann and K. Gaßler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2363 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Holcim (Deutschland) AG and Holcim Ltd to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holcim (Deutschland) AG and Holcim Ltd to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission

(Case T-296/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Reasonable grounds - Judicial review - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/36

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Cementos Portland Valderrivas, SA (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and N. Ruiz García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Urraca Caviedes and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Rivas, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2368 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cementos Portland Valderrivas, SA to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cementos Portland Valderrivas, SA to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission

(Case T-297/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/37

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Buzzi Unicem SpA (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Gencarelli, L. Malferrari and C. Hödlmayer, and subsequently by: L. Malferrari and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and M. Merola, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2356 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Buzzi Unicem SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Buzzi Unicem SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — HeidelbergCement v Commission

(Case T-302/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, T. Holzmüller and P. Pichler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders HeidelbergCement AG to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HeidelbergCement AG to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Italmobiliare v Commission

(Case T-305/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italmobiliare SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene, G. Rizza and M. Piergiovanni, and subsequently by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and G. Rizza, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Gencarelli, L. Malferrari, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Hödlmayer, and subsequently by: L. Malferrari, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and M. Malaguti, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2364 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Italmobiliare SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Italmobiliare SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Schwenk Zement v Commission

(Case T-306/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Raible, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP 39520 — cement and related products) as regards the 11th series of questions in the questionnaire constituting Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP 39520 — cement and related products) as regards the 11th series of questions in the questionnaire constituting Annex I thereto;

| 2. | Orders Schwenk Zement KG to bear two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Schwenk Zement KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Schwenk Zement KG to bear two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Schwenk Zement KG;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Lardini v OHIM (Affixing of a flower to a collar)

(Case T-131/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 135/41

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Lardini Srl (Filottrano, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 (Case R 2578/2011-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a sign consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Lardini Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Lardini Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/34

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — FESI v Council

(Case T-134/10) (1)

((Action for annulment - Dumping - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather coming from Macao - Association representing independent importers - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 135/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Vermulst and Y. van Gerven, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 1996 L 352, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/34

---

Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Commission

(Case T-430/10) (1)

((Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries - Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - Dismissal - Discontinuance - Removal from the register))

2014/C 135/43

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Magnesitas de Rubián, SA (Incio, Spain); Magnesitas Navarras, SA (Zubiri, Spain); and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Re:

Principally, application for the annulment of Chapter 3 of the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries (OJ 2010 C 166), entitled ‘Magnesium Oxide Industry (dry process route based on mined natural magnesite)’, and the references to the magnesium oxide industry in that document and, in the alternative, application for the annulment of point 3.5.5.4 of that document.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.

| 2. | Case T-430/10 is removed from the Register of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Case T-430/10 is removed from the Register of the General Court.

| 3. | Magnesitas de Rubián, SA, Magnesitas Navarras, SA and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Magnesitas de Rubián, SA, Magnesitas Navarras, SA and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/35

---

Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-158/11) (1)

((Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU - Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - Dismissal - Discontinuance - Removal from the register))

2014/C 135/44

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Magnesitas de Rubián, SA (Incio, Spain); Magnesitas Navarras, SA (Zubiri, Spain); and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: initially M. Gómez-Leal, I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, and subsequently M. Gómez-Leal and M. Visaggio, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and K. Michoel, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Alcover San Pedro and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, and subsequently by S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17), insofar as it imposes an obligation on the Member States to respect the conclusions on best available techniques contained in section 3.5 of the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries (OJ 2010 C 166, p. 5), as regards the conditions of the permits which the competent authorities grant to manufacturing facilities for magnesium subject to permits under that directive.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.

| 2. | Case T-158/11 is removed from the Register of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Case T-158/11 is removed from the Register of the General Court.

| 3. | Magnesitas de Rubián, SA, Magnesitas Navarras, SA and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Magnesitas de Rubián, SA, Magnesitas Navarras, SA and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 4. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/36

---

Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM)

(Case T-411/11) (1)

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

2014/C 135/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hemofarm AD farmaceutsko-hemijska industrija Vršac (Vršac, Serbia) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA (Barberà del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2011 (Case R 298/2010-4), concerning an opposition procedure between Laboratorios Diafarm, SA and Hemofarm AD farmaceutsko-hemijska industrija Vršac.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | All the parties are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

All the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/36

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Eni v Commission

(Joined Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision - Reopening of the procedure - New statement of objections - Closure of the procedure - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 135/46

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, Agents)

Re:

In Case T-240/12, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in a letter of 23 April 2012, informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to reopen the procedure and to adopt a new statement of objections and, in Case T-211/13, application for annulment of Commission decisions C(2013) 1200 final of 26 February 2013 and C(2013) 1199 final of 27 February 2013 to reopen the procedure and to send the applicant a new statement of objections in Case AT. 40032–BR/ESBR — Recidivism, following the partial annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13 are joined for the purposes of the order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13 are joined for the purposes of the order.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions.

| 3. | Eni SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Eni SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/37

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Versalis v Commission

(Joined Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision - Reopening of the procedure - New statement of objections - Closure of the procedure - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 135/47

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versalis SpA (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and M. Siragusa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, Agents)

Re:

In Case T-241/12, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in a letter of 23 April 2012, informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to reopen the procedure and to adopt a new statement of objections and, in Case T-210/13, application for annulment of Commission decisions C(2013) 1200 final of 26 February 2013 and C(2013) 1199 final of 27 February 2013 to reopen the procedure and to send the applicant a new statement of objections in Case AT. 40032–BR/ESBR — Recidivism, following the partial annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13 are joined for the purposes of the order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13 are joined for the purposes of the order.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions.

| 3. | Versalis SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Versalis SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/38

---

Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Spirlea v Commission

(Case T-518/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Public health - Decision to bring an end to an EU pilot procedure - Closure of the file on a complaint - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 135/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy); and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. Wilms, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by S. Centeno Huerta, and subsequently by J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision to bring an end to EU pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO, as referred to in the letter of 27 September 2012, sent to the applicants under reference SANCO/A2/AM/kva (2012) 1245353.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/38

---

Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — Jannatian v Council

(Case T-187/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - List of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply - Period within which an action must be brought - Action brought out of time - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 135/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mahmoud Jannatian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Monnerville, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment, in so far as they concern the applicant, of: (i) Council Common Position 2008/479/CFSP of 23 June 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 43); (ii) Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29); (iii) Council Common Position 2008/652/CFSP of 7 August 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 213, p. 58); (iv) Council Decision 2009/840/CFSP of 17 November 2009 implementing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 64); (v) Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 31); (vi) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39); (vii) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); (viii) Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1); and (ix) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Mahmoud Jannatian shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Mahmoud Jannatian shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/39

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission

(Case T-578/13 R)

((Application for interim measures - Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market - Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of the interests involved))

2014/C 135/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Luxembourg Industries Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision communicated to the applicants by letter of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 8 October 2013 rejecting the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in the peer review report and final addendum thereto concerning the inclusion of the active substance potassium phosphonates submitted by the applicants pursuant to Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 of 25 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Directive 91/414 as regards the procedure for the assessment of active substances which were not on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive (OJ 2011 L 53, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

| 1) | Operation of the Commission’s decision communicated to Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries Ltd by letter of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 8 October 2013 rejecting their request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in the peer review report and final addendum thereto concerning the inclusion of the active substance potassium phosphonates is suspended. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Operation of the Commission’s decision communicated to Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries Ltd by letter of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 8 October 2013 rejecting their request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in the peer review report and final addendum thereto concerning the inclusion of the active substance potassium phosphonates is suspended.

| 2) | The European Commission shall ensure that EFSA does not publish a version of the peer review report and final addendum thereto concerning the inclusion of the active substance potassium phosphonates that is more detailed than the redacted version included in the letter of Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries of 25 February 2013, as set out in Annex A3 to the application in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The European Commission shall ensure that EFSA does not publish a version of the peer review report and final addendum thereto concerning the inclusion of the active substance potassium phosphonates that is more detailed than the redacted version included in the letter of Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries of 25 February 2013, as set out in Annex A3 to the application in the main proceedings.

| 3) | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The costs are reserved.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/40

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission

(Case T-1/14 R)

((Application for interim measures - State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain economic interest groupings (EIG) and their investors - Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 135/51

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Aluminios Cortizo, SA (Padrón, Spain) and Cortizo Cartera, SL (Padrón) (represented by: A. Beiras Cal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, M. Afonso, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of, inter alia, Commission Decision C(2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on State aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006) — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/40

---

Appeal brought on 12 March 2014 by Eva Cuallado Martorell against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2012 in Case F-96/09 Cuallado Martorell v Commission

(Case T-506/12 P)

2014/C 135/52

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Eva Cuallado Martorell (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by C. Pinto Cañón, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare her appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) in Case F-96/09 to be well founded and set that judgment aside in part, that is to say, setting aside the ruling of inadmissibility made in respect of her application for annulment of the competition selection board’s decision refusing her admission to the oral test and the rejection of her application for annulment of the decisions refusing to send her the marked written tests and the personal evaluation sheet relating to those tests; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare her appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) in Case F-96/09 to be well founded and set that judgment aside in part, that is to say, setting aside the ruling of inadmissibility made in respect of her application for annulment of the competition selection board’s decision refusing her admission to the oral test and the rejection of her application for annulment of the decisions refusing to send her the marked written tests and the personal evaluation sheet relating to those tests;

| — | grant the forms of order sought at first instance, except to the extent that they impugn the decisions refusing written tests (b) and (c) in so far as those decisions refused disclosure of her test papers and the evaluation sheets drawn up by the selection board for each of those tests, since EPSO sent her those documents by letter of 16 June 2010, paragraphs 72 and 73; and |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the forms of order sought at first instance, except to the extent that they impugn the decisions refusing written tests (b) and (c) in so far as those decisions refused disclosure of her test papers and the evaluation sheets drawn up by the selection board for each of those tests, since EPSO sent her those documents by letter of 16 June 2010, paragraphs 72 and 73; and

| — | uphold the order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal: the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding inadmissible certain pleas set out in the application, thereby acting in breach of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






  — | The appellant submits in this regard that the Civil Service Tribunal held certain of the pleas set out in the application to be out of time, in that it found, in breach of the principle of pro actione, that in order to calculate, in relation to the contested act, the time allowed for bringing an action, there was no need to consider the appellant’s administrative complaint submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal: the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding inadmissible certain pleas set out in the application, thereby acting in breach of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

The appellant submits in this regard that the Civil Service Tribunal held certain of the pleas set out in the application to be out of time, in that it found, in breach of the principle of pro actione, that in order to calculate, in relation to the contested act, the time allowed for bringing an action, there was no need to consider the appellant’s administrative complaint submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal: the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU in finding that the communication to a candidate merely of the marks obtained by that person in two written tests in an open competition, without further reasoning, constitutes an adequate statement of reasons.






  — | In response to the finding made by the Civil Service Tribunal that all the proceedings of a selection board are covered by secrecy, by implication defending the immunity of decisions, the appellant argues that a selection board’s decisions may be open to review by the courts on the basis of the distinction, within the selection board’s technical assessment, between the ‘substantive core of the decision’ and the ‘background’ to that decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal: the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU in finding that the communication to a candidate merely of the marks obtained by that person in two written tests in an open competition, without further reasoning, constitutes an adequate statement of reasons.

—

In response to the finding made by the Civil Service Tribunal that all the proceedings of a selection board are covered by secrecy, by implication defending the immunity of decisions, the appellant argues that a selection board’s decisions may be open to review by the courts on the basis of the distinction, within the selection board’s technical assessment, between the ‘substantive core of the decision’ and the ‘background’ to that decision.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal: infringement of Articles 42 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






  — | The appellant submits in this regard that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding that an open competition candidate who disagrees with the mark obtained does not have a right of access to the marked written tests and that, in so doing, it infringed her right of access to the documents. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal: infringement of Articles 42 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

The appellant submits in this regard that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding that an open competition candidate who disagrees with the mark obtained does not have a right of access to the marked written tests and that, in so doing, it infringed her right of access to the documents.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/41

---

Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo)

(Case T-11/14)

2014/C 135/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

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

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 5 November 2013 given in Case R 441/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 November 2013 given in Case R 441/2013-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Pianissimo’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 11 102 266

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/42

---

Action brought on 15 January 2014 — St’art and Others v Commission

(Case T-36/14)

2014/C 135/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the application to be admissible and well founded and consequently annul the contested measures:






  — | either the European Commission’s decision of an unknown date to terminate the project ‘Factor SI.2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and to end, as a consequence, the award of the subsidy granted to the consortium created by the applicants; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the application to be admissible and well founded and consequently annul the contested measures:

—

either the European Commission’s decision of an unknown date to terminate the project ‘Factor SI.2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and to end, as a consequence, the award of the subsidy granted to the consortium created by the applicants;

| — | or the decision confirming that, adopted on 29 November 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

or the decision confirming that, adopted on 29 November 2013;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings including the lawyers’ fees and pre-trial work. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings including the lawyers’ fees and pre-trial work.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the right to be treated fairly and of the general principle that agreements and contractual terms and conditions must be performed in good faith, in so far as the reasoning provided by the Commission is incorrect and or none of the terms and conditions for terminating the contract are met. The applicants claim that the fact that the objectives which the project was to meet were met by other means, thereby depriving the project of its objective, is not a valid reason to terminate the subsidy contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the right to be treated fairly and of the general principle that agreements and contractual terms and conditions must be performed in good faith, in so far as the reasoning provided by the Commission is incorrect and or none of the terms and conditions for terminating the contract are met. The applicants claim that the fact that the objectives which the project was to meet were met by other means, thereby depriving the project of its objective, is not a valid reason to terminate the subsidy contract.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/43

---

Action brought on 28 January 2014 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

(Case T-65/14)

2014/C 135/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law alleging failure to state reasons in breach of Article 296 TFEU, in so far as the implementing regulation which includes the applicant on the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures does not specifically indicate the legal basis on which it was taken. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law alleging failure to state reasons in breach of Article 296 TFEU, in so far as the implementing regulation which includes the applicant on the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures does not specifically indicate the legal basis on which it was taken.

| 2. | Second plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis, in so far as the legal basis of the implementing regulation in dispute is Regulation No 267/2012, (1) which ought to be held to be inapplicable to the applicant in that, first, it was taken in breach of the obligation to state reasons set by Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, second, Article 23(2)(d) of it, which constitutes the legal basis for including the applicant in the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012, infringes the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis, in so far as the legal basis of the implementing regulation in dispute is Regulation No 267/2012, (1) which ought to be held to be inapplicable to the applicant in that, first, it was taken in breach of the obligation to state reasons set by Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, second, Article 23(2)(d) of it, which constitutes the legal basis for including the applicant in the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012, infringes the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third, fourth, fifth and six pleas in law alleging, respectively, (i) an error of law; (ii) an error of fact and a manifest error of assessment, (iii) an infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective legal protection and (iv) infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third, fourth, fifth and six pleas in law alleging, respectively, (i) an error of law; (ii) an error of fact and a manifest error of assessment, (iii) an infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective legal protection and (iv) infringement of the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Seventh plea in law alleging that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), which constitutes the legal basis of the penalty which is imposed on the applicant must be declared to be inapplicable to it as that provision is contrary to the treaties, to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims that the decision to include it in the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures must therefore be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Seventh plea in law alleging that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), which constitutes the legal basis of the penalty which is imposed on the applicant must be declared to be inapplicable to it as that provision is contrary to the treaties, to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims that the decision to include it in the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures must therefore be annulled.

| 5. | Eighth plea in law alleging that the disputed sanction became unlawful as from 20 January 2014 since the Council recognised on that date that Iran no longer pursued nuclear activities which are the cause of the sanction. The applicant claims that the sanction therefore loses its objective. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Eighth plea in law alleging that the disputed sanction became unlawful as from 20 January 2014 since the Council recognised on that date that Iran no longer pursued nuclear activities which are the cause of the sanction. The applicant claims that the sanction therefore loses its objective.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

(2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/44

---

Action brought on 31 January 2014 — France v Commission

(Case T-74/14)

2014/C 135/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety European Commission Decision No C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid No SA.16237 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety European Commission Decision No C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid No SA.16237 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 by which the Commission found that, first, the balance of the restructuring aid, notified by the French authorities on 18 February 2002, in the amount of EUR 15,81 million and, secondly, the three measures implemented by the French authorities in 2006 in favour of Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (‘SNCM’), namely, the disposal of 75% of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million, the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million subscribed for Compagnie générale maritime et financière (‘CGMF’) and the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million, constitute State aid which is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market. The Commission consequently ordered recovery of those amounts.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence as the Commission refused to reopen the formal investigation procedure following the judgment delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France v Commission [2012] ECR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence as the Commission refused to reopen the formal investigation procedure following the judgment delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France v Commission [2012] ECR.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of the concept of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU as the Commission found that the 2006 measures were to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision. This plea is divided into three parts. The applicant takes the view that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU:






  — | inasmuch as it found that the disposal of 75% of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million had to be classified as State aid and that the private investor test was not satisfied in the present case; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of the concept of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU as the Commission found that the 2006 measures were to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision. This plea is divided into three parts. The applicant takes the view that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU:

—

inasmuch as it found that the disposal of 75% of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million had to be classified as State aid and that the private investor test was not satisfied in the present case;

| — | inasmuch as it found that the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million had to be classified as State aid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as it found that the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million had to be classified as State aid; and

| — | inasmuch as it found that the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million in favour of SNCM employees had to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as it found that the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million in favour of SNCM employees had to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission found that the capital contribution of EUR 15,81 million notified in 2002 for restructuring aid had to be classified as State aid incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission found that the capital contribution of EUR 15,81 million notified in 2002 for restructuring aid had to be classified as State aid incompatible with the internal market.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/45

---

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission

(Case T-76/14)

2014/C 135/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Morningstar, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: S. Kinsella, K. Daly and P. Harrison, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Commission Decision in Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes, dated 20 December 2012, and published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2013 (OJ C 326, p. 4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision in Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes, dated 20 December 2012, and published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2013 (OJ C 326, p. 4);

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs; and

| — | Grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision adopted in the framework of Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA, concerning practices by Thomson Reuters giving rise to barriers to switching between consolidated real-time datafeeds. By the contested decision the Commission made binding upon Thomson Reuters certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and decided that there were no longer grounds for action. The applicant is a competitor of Thomson Reuters.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in adopting the Decision since the commitments manifestly fail to address the competition concerns identified in the Decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in adopting the Decision since the commitments manifestly fail to address the competition concerns identified in the Decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires because it exceeded powers granted to it by the European Council and the Decision therefore lacks a proper legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires because it exceeded powers granted to it by the European Council and the Decision therefore lacks a proper legal basis.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision has failed to respect the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision has failed to respect the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the Commission’s duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the Commission’s duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/46

---

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of grey pattern)

(Case T-77/14)

2014/C 135/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2013 given in Case R 704/2013-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2013 given in Case R 704/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of grey pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 388 386

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/46

---

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455)

(Case T-78/14)

2014/C 135/59

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Köperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (Andechs, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 in Case R 1272/2012-1 concerning the opposition proceedings No B 1 754 228 (Community trade mark application No 9 255 811); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 in Case R 1272/2012-1 concerning the opposition proceedings No B 1 754 228 (Community trade mark application No 9 255 811);

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455’ for goods in Class 29 (Community trade mark application No 9 255 811)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks containing the word elements ‘ANDECHSER NATUR’ and ‘ANDECHSER NATUR SEIT 1908’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

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

—

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/47

---

Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER)

(Case T-81/14)

2014/C 135/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: D. Stone and R. Allos, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smart Wines GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2013 given in Case R 903/2013-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2013 given in Case R 903/2013-2;

| — | Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMARTWATER’ for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 400 194

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier Community trade mark registration No 5 853 601 for the word mark ‘SMART WINES’ for goods in Classes 30 and 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/48

---

Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)

(Case T-84/14)

2014/C 135/61

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/48

---

Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

(Case T-85/14)

2014/C 135/62

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio e Indústria, Lda (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 November 2013 given in Case R 1106/2012-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 November 2013 given in Case R 1106/2012-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DINKOOL’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 9 768 061

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 229 048 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DIN’ for goods in Classes 1 to 34 and an earlier non-registered word mark ‘DIN’ in Germany

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested Community trade mark application in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/49

---

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-89/14)

2014/C 135/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law of which eight are essentially identical or similar to those advanced in Case T-65/14 Bank Refah Kargaran v Council.

Furthermore the applicant relies on a plea in law alleging infringement of the principles of equality and of non-discrimination.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/50

---

Action brought on 3 February 2014 — Secolux v Commission and CdT

(Case T-90/14)

2014/C 135/64

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Prüm-Carré, lawyer)

Defendants: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) and the European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 3 December 2013 of the European Commission — acting both for itself and on behalf of other contracting authorities, namely the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union and the Publications Office of the European Union — rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 1, ‘Statutory environmental checks and checks relating to safety and welfare’, in the context of call for tenders No 02/2013/OIL ‘Safety checks’, and awarding the contract at issue to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 3 December 2013 of the European Commission — acting both for itself and on behalf of other contracting authorities, namely the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union and the Publications Office of the European Union — rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 1, ‘Statutory environmental checks and checks relating to safety and welfare’, in the context of call for tenders No 02/2013/OIL ‘Safety checks’, and awarding the contract at issue to another tenderer;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 467 186,08 in damages as compensation for the harm sustained, together with statutory interest accrued from the date on which the contract was awarded until payment of the sums due; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 467 186,08 in damages as compensation for the harm sustained, together with statutory interest accrued from the date on which the contract was awarded until payment of the sums due;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the entire 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 procedural irregularities, since contradictory information was brought to the applicant’s knowledge concerning the amount of the successful tender for Lot No 1. The applicant submits that:






  — | the amount of the tender of the successful tenderer, referred to in the Commission’s letter dated 11 December 2013 informing the applicant of the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, is inaccurate because it is too low. In that case, the applicant did not have access to sure information on the price of the successful tender, which infringes the obligation to state reasons; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities, since contradictory information was brought to the applicant’s knowledge concerning the amount of the successful tender for Lot No 1. The applicant submits that:

—

the amount of the tender of the successful tenderer, referred to in the Commission’s letter dated 11 December 2013 informing the applicant of the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, is inaccurate because it is too low. In that case, the applicant did not have access to sure information on the price of the successful tender, which infringes the obligation to state reasons; or

| — | the value of the contract awarded, contained in the contract award notice published on 24 December 2013, (1) is incorrect because it is too high. In that case the contract award notice does not reflect the value of the successful tender, which constitutes a breach of the obligation of transparency; or |
| --- | --- |

—

the value of the contract awarded, contained in the contract award notice published on 24 December 2013, (1) is incorrect because it is too high. In that case the contract award notice does not reflect the value of the successful tender, which constitutes a breach of the obligation of transparency; or

| — | the amount of the successful tender as stated in the Commission’s letter of 11 December 2013 and the value of the contract as stated in the contract award notice are correct. In that case, the contract was awarded for an amount greater than the successful tender, which constitutes a serious infringement of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

the amount of the successful tender as stated in the Commission’s letter of 11 December 2013 and the value of the contract as stated in the contract award notice are correct. In that case, the contract was awarded for an amount greater than the successful tender, which constitutes a serious infringement of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an irregularity in the successful tender, in so far as the successful tenderer could not, at the price tendered, carry out correctly all the services requested with staff having the required qualifications. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an irregularity in the successful tender, in so far as the successful tenderer could not, at the price tendered, carry out correctly all the services requested with staff having the required qualifications.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that there was an abnormally low tender. The applicant submits that there is a body of evidence indicating that the successful tender does not accord with any economic reality. The Commission ought therefore to have requested details from the successful tenderer of the constituent elements of its tender, pursuant to Article 151 of delegated regulation No 1268/2012. (2) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that there was an abnormally low tender. The applicant submits that there is a body of evidence indicating that the successful tender does not accord with any economic reality. The Commission ought therefore to have requested details from the successful tenderer of the constituent elements of its tender, pursuant to Article 151 of delegated regulation No 1268/2012. (2)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination during both the preparation and the evaluation of the tenders. The applicant submits:






  — | first that, since the successful tenderer was also awarded the earlier contracts, it had privileged information in relation to locations, services to be performed and amounts actually sought by the Commission, which ought to have led the Commission to request details from the applicant on the basis of Article 160(3) of delegated regulation No 1268/2012; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination during both the preparation and the evaluation of the tenders. The applicant submits:

—

first that, since the successful tenderer was also awarded the earlier contracts, it had privileged information in relation to locations, services to be performed and amounts actually sought by the Commission, which ought to have led the Commission to request details from the applicant on the basis of Article 160(3) of delegated regulation No 1268/2012;

| — | and, secondly, that the Commission took into account the quality of the services previously provided by the tenderer awarded the earlier contracts when evaluating the tenders submitted in respect of the contract to be awarded. |
| --- | --- |

—

and, secondly, that the Commission took into account the quality of the services previously provided by the tenderer awarded the earlier contracts when evaluating the tenders submitted in respect of the contract to be awarded.

---

(1)  OJ 2013/S 249-433951.

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/51

---

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — St'art and Others v Commission

(Case T-93/14)

2014/C 135/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the application to be admissible and well founded and consequently annul the contested measure:






  — | namely the decision of an unknown date formalised on 29 November 2013 by the European Commission to reclaim the sum of EUR 140 500,01 from the company EDC in the context of the tender ‘Factor SI.2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and to require, if necessary, for that purpose, the joint and several liability of the other members of the consortium. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the application to be admissible and well founded and consequently annul the contested measure:

—

namely the decision of an unknown date formalised on 29 November 2013 by the European Commission to reclaim the sum of EUR 140 500,01 from the company EDC in the context of the tender ‘Factor SI.2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and to require, if necessary, for that purpose, the joint and several liability of the other members of the consortium.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration and inter alia of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the principle of lawfulness, in so far as the Commission’s decision to recover the advances paid to the company EDC in the context of the project ‘C-I Factor’ and to claim the joint and several liability of the applicants, members of the consortium, in that regard is based on an unlawful decision to terminate the subsidy contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration and inter alia of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the principle of lawfulness, in so far as the Commission’s decision to recover the advances paid to the company EDC in the context of the project ‘C-I Factor’ and to claim the joint and several liability of the applicants, members of the consortium, in that regard is based on an unlawful decision to terminate the subsidy contract.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations. The applicants also complain that the Commission did not give them the opportunity to carry out, themselves, the obligations arising from the contract in order to remedy any possible shortcomings of the company EDC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations. The applicants also complain that the Commission did not give them the opportunity to carry out, themselves, the obligations arising from the contract in order to remedy any possible shortcomings of the company EDC.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/52

---

Action brought on 11 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a coloured pattern)

(Case T-94/14)

2014/C 135/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 November 2013 given in Case R 495/2013-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 November 2013 given in Case R 495/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of a coloured pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 28, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 177 631

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/52

---

Action brought on 11 February 2014 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)

(Case T-96/14)

2014/C 135/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vimeo LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and M. Macdonald, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PT Comunicações, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 1092/2013-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 1092/2013-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VIMEO’ for services in Classes 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 843 061

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘meo’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/53

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11 Simpson v Council

(Case T-130/14 P)

2014/C 135/68

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11, Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr. Simpson; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11, Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr. Simpson;

| — | Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; and

| — | Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the conclusion of the Civil Service Tribunal, according to which the contested decision is unlawful on grounds of infringement of the obligation to state grounds, is based on erroneous premises due to the distortion of evidence and cannot therefore be upheld.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/53

---

Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR)

(Case T-132/14)

2014/C 135/69

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Albis Plastic GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IQAP Masterbatch Group, SL (Masíes de Roda, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 December 2013 in Case R 1015/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 December 2013 in Case R 1015/2012-2;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘ALCOLOR’ for goods and services in Class 1 — Community trade mark No 3 073 889

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: IQAP Masterbatch Group, SL

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘ALCOLOR’ for goods in Class 2, and company name ‘ALCOLOR’ used in Spain the course of trade for ‘dyestuffs’

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and its implementing provisions

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/54

---

Action brought on 20 February 2014 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)

(Case T-135/14)

2014/C 135/70

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicktipp GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Società Italiana Calzature Srl (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 1061/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 1061/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘kicktipp’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 8 874 281

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trademarks Nos 348 149, 905 554, 905 554 for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/55

---

Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

(Case T-136/14)

2014/C 135/71

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tilda Riceland Private Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, N. Urwin and D. Sills, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siam Grains Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

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 18 December 2013 given in Case R 1086/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 December 2013 given in Case R 1086/2012-4;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 3 520 641

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier non-registered trade mark and the earlier sign ‘used in the course of trade designating a class of goods’‘BASMATI’ used in the United Kingdom in relation to ‘rice’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/55

---

Action brought on 25 February 2014 — I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Device of a circle)

(Case T-137/14)

2014/C 135/72

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: I Castellani Srl (Meldola, Italy) (represented by: M. Caramelli, F. Boscariol de Roberto, I. Gatto and D. Martucci, lawyers)

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2013 given in Case R 1001/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2013 given in Case R 1001/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The figurative mark representing a device of a circle for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark registration No 2 844 033

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: It revoked the registration of Community trade mark No 2 844 033

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(2) CTMR.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/56

---

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Bora Creations v OHIM (gel nails at home)

(Case T-140/14)

2014/C 135/73

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 December 2013 in Case R 450/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 December 2013 in Case R 450/2013-1;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘gel nails at home’ for goods in Classes 3, 8, 11 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 11 331 634

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/57

---

Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a yellowy pattern)

(Case T-143/14)

2014/C 135/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 703/2013-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 703/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of a yellowy pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 388 311

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/57

---

Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of an ivory dotted pattern)

(Case T-144/14)

2014/C 135/75

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 given in Case R 705/2013-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 given in Case R 705/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of an ivory pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 388 493

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/58

---

Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp)

(Case T-156/14)

2014/C 135/76

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

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 7 January 2014 in Case R 1335/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 in Case R 1335/2013-4;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘StartUp’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 11 792 009

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/58

---

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

(Case T-162/14)

2014/C 135/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH (Munich, Germany); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China); Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that by failing to examine the applicants’ market economy treatment requests, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that by failing to examine the applicants’ market economy treatment requests, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

---

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

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/59

---

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

(Case T-163/14)

2014/C 135/78

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH (Munich, Germany); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China); Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), as far as it applies to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), as far as it applies to the applicants;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 10(12) and 10(13) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 10(12) and 10(13) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (1).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-subsidy investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-subsidy investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/60

---

Action brought on 13 March 2014 — Pérez Gutiérrez v Commission

(Case T-168/14)

2014/C 135/79

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ana Pérez Gutiérrez (Mataró, Spain) (represented by: J. Soler Puebla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare that there has been an unlawful interference in the right to honour, family life and the protection of personal image by the unauthorised use of Mr Patrick Johannes Jacquemyn’s picture, through the European Commission’s inclusion of his photograph in the Picture library for health warnings for tobacco products in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that there has been an unlawful interference in the right to honour, family life and the protection of personal image by the unauthorised use of Mr Patrick Johannes Jacquemyn’s picture, through the European Commission’s inclusion of his photograph in the Picture library for health warnings for tobacco products in the European Union.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 181 104 in respect of loss of earnings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 181 104 in respect of loss of earnings.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 0.01 per tobacco packet or product on which Mr Patrick Jacquemyn’s picture appears, the total amount to be determined at the time of enforcement of the judgment, and which at this time represents an amount of twenty-seven million five hundred and eighty-eight thousand five hundred and twenty-four euro (EUR 27 588 524). |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 0.01 per tobacco packet or product on which Mr Patrick Jacquemyn’s picture appears, the total amount to be determined at the time of enforcement of the judgment, and which at this time represents an amount of twenty-seven million five hundred and eighty-eight thousand five hundred and twenty-four euro (EUR 27 588 524).

| — | Order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation for the benefit obtained through the unlawful use of Mr Patrick Jacquemyn’s picture, which amounts to EUR 13 790 000 in Spain, the place of residence of the applicant and Mr Patrick Jacquemyn. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation for the benefit obtained through the unlawful use of Mr Patrick Jacquemyn’s picture, which amounts to EUR 13 790 000 in Spain, the place of residence of the applicant and Mr Patrick Jacquemyn.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the present proceedings is an action to establish non-contractual liability in respect of, and for compensation for, the damage caused by, the European Commission’s unlawful use of a picture of Mr Patrick Johannes Jacquemyn, the applicant’s spouse, on the health warnings that are required to be included on all tobacco products in the European Union.

In support of her action, the applicant claims that Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, and Article 5(3) thereof, were implemented by European Commission Decision 2003/641/EC of 5 September 2003 on the use of colour photographs [or other illustrations] as health warnings on tobacco packages. Decision C (2005) 1452 of 26 May 2005 on the library of selected source documents containing colour photographs [or other illustrations] for each of the additional warnings listed in Annex I to Directive 2001/37/EC was subsequently adopted, and it was later amended by Decision C (2006) 1502 of 13 April 2006.

That Directive and those Decisions concerning the pictures that are required to be included on tobacco packaging were transposed into the laws of each of the States of the European Union. Specifically, in the case of Spain, they were transposed by Royal Decree 639/2010 of 14 May [2010]. From the 42 pictures proposed by the European Commission, the Spanish State selected 14, including the picture of Mr Patrick Jacquemyn.

The applicant states that Mr Jacquemyn was admitted to the Hospital de Barcelona on 21 June 2002 where he remained until 16 August 2002, and was in a coma for 22 days. Since then, and without his consent having been obtained, various pictures of Mr Jacquemyn have appeared on the internet, for his had been a clinical case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], he had undergone a difficult intubation and tracheotomy, and his had become a case-study.

It was through this unauthorised use of a picture of Mr Patrick Jacquemyn while in a coma that one of his pictures was included in the Picture Library for health warnings, prior to the photograph being processed by the advertising company contracted for the campaign.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/61

---

Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council

(Case T-119/12) (1)

2014/C 135/80

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/61

---

Order of the General Court of 24 February 2014 — Bimbo v OHIM (FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES)

(Case T-600/13) (1)

2014/C 135/81

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

---